Eric Weinstein? Does he actually believe the things he says? Isn’t he a troll? Or a parody of a troll? (And/or a number of other things?)By and large they are only having this reaction, as their soft-power, which requires a liberal sprinkling of grievances is being washed away. Rowling types have been the dominant group for two generations and in the ascendancy for the previous two. They require a mild paralysis of conservative men and women to be able to assume leadership roles, which they are not made for. They can only hold those positions from behind the veneer of representing marginalised people.
An analysis of what they say shows they always sympathise with the causes of the far-left, but only so far as it can support liberal dominance. When it comes to these causes supporting the far-left ascendancy they start to get very defensive and offer condemnation of the far-left that verges on censoriousness. They are not interested in engaging the far-left. They want them gone, so they can continue to offer milquetoast policies for systemic oppression. The freaks at the end of the spectrum are useful, but they shouldn't be grappling for position with well-educated, cognizant and well spoken academics(-types).
Conversely they are much more hostile to the moderate-right and conservatives than they are the far-left. They see these people as having no validity, demagogues. I've heard numerous of the liberals say how they don't want to talk with conservatives. They won't come out and say they want them banned. They want them 'over there', out of the way. Somewhere where they don't have to deal with them. That somewhere is the place they pushed them using softer versions of the same ploys the far-left wield against them. Note that we have seen them say very little on the wholesale banning of conservative voices from the internet ghettos of Silicon Valley. They are only coming out now liberals are getting hit.
In particular Eric Weinstein has said on multiple occasions that he wants the intellectual dork web to instantly root out people who should not be part of the conversation. When you put it together with other things he says, there are less than 1% of people who would be allowed to participate in their great 'liberal' debate.
This is the key line in the Rowling letter. It's not a leftist or conservative society. All of those facets must be pushed aside as overhanded or intolerant, under the pretense that liberalism is one big banner where everyone has equal rights and can speak freely. It's a lie. Only well-spoken liberals can speak.
With that said there are a few exceptions to this, like Claire Lehman and Jordan Peterson, who are mildly conservative-leaning liberals. Both have opened the door to conservative people and ideas.
They are very afraid that their old tools no longer work for them. Ten years ago Rowling could have invoked being a marginalised woman - an experience that men can't comprehend and so must move aside. She would not need to debate in lieu of this and could enjoy the fruits of society bending to her benefit. This no longer works, particularly for a white woman who is beyond wealthy. The far-left can wheel out an obese, black transgender who says "Stop killing us! You're erasing us with your fragile white feminism." There is no argument and suddenly the world bends from the left to the far-left.
The liberal-left are finished. They established their dominance by being stewards for the marginalised, using that stewardship to emotionally manipulate their opponents to stand down. They filled institutions with paid enforcers of their ideology, which didn't have to defend itself. They will always loose against the far-left so long as they choose that mechanism - the far-left has a far better hand to play that game. And they are now taking over all of their institutions with it. The only force that can tackle the far-left is a conservative one.