system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
My friend hates Focualt and thinks he is a dangerous thinker and is one of the causes of intolerant identity politics and cancel culture is this true?

I was speaking to my friend the other day about Foucault, who I have been reading for the past year or two. He hates Focault's work because he thinks his work is dangerous because it subverts the traditions of the west in the same way Marxism does and he believes that Foucault is one of the foundational thinkers that lead to Cancel Culture and intolerant identity politics and victimhood. He has read parts of work but finds it hard to read him because he dislikes him so much. My friend's objections to Focault are the following. 1. One objection he has against Foucault (which I sympathise with) is in relation to the History of Sexuality. My friend was understandably outraged about Focault's reaction to and description of Charles Jouy's abuse of a young girl as 'bucolic pleasures'. (This is made all the worse with the new allegations made against Foucault) 2. He is also angered by Foucault's idea that power is everywhere and everything he believes this makes people paranoid and prone to sensationalized victimhood thinking, he points to parts of contemporary feminism as an example of this(This reminds me of Wendy Brown's book 'states of injury' which argues that the politics of *victimhood* is a part of contemporary feminism). 3. He also rejects F's idea of power-knowledge-subject as this leads to the contemporary idea that gender is just a social construct (which he rejects).  4. My friend is also not left-leaning politically which is another disagreement that my friend has with Foucault. Because of all of this, he thinks we should not read Foucault because by reading him you end up thinking like him. Do you think my friend is correct or even valid in this concern, if so why? if not why not?
gpt
You can't say a philosopher is bad just because you disagree with their conclusions, you have to actually demonstrate how the arguments themselves are bad.

>he thinks we should not read Foucault because by reading him you end up thinking like him.

Sounds like his own beliefs are on shaky grounds if he believes simply reading Foucault will cause a fundamental change in them.