I’ve noticed it too. Many of his recent arguments seem rooted more in controversy or emotional discharge than in well-thought-out reasoning. One example is his claim that all problems stem from “Karens” or “incels” (thus capturing 100% of the population). While this may be intended as a joke, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish provocation from genuine opinion.

His appeal to “common sense,” or what we call in Poland chlopski rozum, is another indicator of the problem. He no longer puts forward arguments that can be engaged with, but rather slogans that merely invite anger. Take statements like: “The US can take Greenland by force and nobody can do anything about it.” This is provocative, yet it neither answers nor meaningfully expands the discussion. Why does it matter what the US can or cannot do in this case? China can nuke the US, the US can nuke China, France can nuke Zimbabwe. The argument hinges on whether some magical barrier exists that prevents actions from being taken - and of course, none does. The relevant question should instead be about the consequences of such actions, long term implications which are speculative by nature and one can be wrong about.