I think is this one:

daniel everett is the guy who worked on pirahã. he has all sorts of fantastical claims about the language but chief among it is the idea that the language doesn't include recursion because the speakers avoid relative clauses (not what recursion means in this context but ok). the papers are basically unfalsifiable because the pirahã people distrust outsiders, rightly so, and he steers very close to outright calling the people primitive savages, which is very uncomfortable. if you call him out on his shit he just calls you a chomsky shill. super toxic guy.

I find it funny that it's from the same user that wrote this comment in another meme I posted about it:

everett's papers are incoherent and contradictory

yes we should be skeptical of any theory. but finding proof that one part of a theory might be wrong does not make the entire theory wrong (also evidence keeps emerging that everett had an incomplete understanding of pirahã as for example didn't someone prove that recursion is actually possible in pirahã, just marked by prosody rather than syntax?). and then framing it as "fuck chomsky" rather than "fuck universal grammar" is disingenuous at the very least.

i dunno i could say more but i won't. i will say though: the way that everett frames this discussion as being either with him or with chomsky is frankly delusional

Found with new Reddit's comment search:

https://new.reddit.com/search/?q=Daniel%2BEverett%2Bcopypasta&type=comment

There was a very similar comment in the reddit post, to which I replied:

I also noticed that. I think it's so the audience have something to know what's happening. It could have been hidden from the volunteer. The only reason I can imagine for not doing so is that not seeing what he is writing might be less comfortable (especially if she were the only one in the room that cannot see it) and making it easy for "the subject" seems to be an important point.