Cute but no. The writing could be unsummarizable because it was too complex. This guy wants his stuff to be too terse for summarizing, an angle you left out.
@hughlaurie@jan_murray Bach, etc, explored fresh depths of meaning and expression by reworking themes.
Republic Westerns repeated themselves. So did House.
"The callousness, the tone deafness of that, you could hear the groan in the room. They put out a big spread of bagels like we were all going to feel better."
The thing is, I would have eaten the bagels. I'm not made for heroism.
@VirtueApplied02 Lewis argues w/ progressives. And of course that woman next to her was just asking a celebrity a touchy question.
Your impressions of your personal experience aside, OP's evidence doesn't match his story.
Since you're confused and persistent, I'm going to block you.
Helen Lewis doesn't fit this guy's made-up story. And the upper-right woman was just asking a film star a touchy question.
But we should think the other 2 women are making faces specifically because they tried to debate some clear thinker and found themselves w/out rebuttal?
I have been seeing a certain archetypal commenter in the spotlight recently; all women my age, progressive, and employed at mainstream institutions. I don't know them. Yet in every case, I can intuit their origin story.
It goes something like this:
> be an older millennial female, no strong passion, but strive hard in school
> reach High School
> steer clear of the kids who like talking about “far out” philosophical issues
> also steer clear of student government and debate club, which seems too contentious and vaguely threatening
> focus on getting perfect marks, complying with college reqs. Get into top uni based on those marks
> get introduced to politics in freshmen social justice class, instantly floored
> the appeal of college politics is just how cut-and-dried it is. Unlike other fields, it has a clear “good” and “bad” side, no ambiguity. The “good” side always wins in classroom discussions, you feel like a hero for validating consensus with "The Conversation"
> politics becomes your religion, “this is my passion!”
> graduate with top marks and recs. Your degree is essentially in “Current Thing-ism”. Have no broad understanding of history or philosophy.
> Your concept of human events is just people being oppressed for 4000 years until feminism and progress happened in the 20th c.
> despite the Global Financial Crisis, immediately get hired by a government/media org because they want someone who “understands the role of female politics in our new digital era!”
> most of your colleagues share your perspective, the ones who don't are older guys on their way to retirement, not looking for the confrontation that disagreeing with you would certainly involve.
> great awokening happens, double down on Current-Thingism politics
> organe-man-bad and COVID happens, triple down on politics.
> you are 15 years deep in your career, you have never once genuinely engaged with a peer who didn't validate your worldview or who you didn't consider a "token" opposition to placade your political enemies
> vibe shift happens, establishment uncertain, time to have a "conversation" with the people you've considered deplorable
> have conversation, hear non-progressive opinion that is common in the modern world, historically ubiquitous
> react with schock, umbrage horror. "Can you even believe this is happening?"
> confident that non-progressive opinion is trivially easy to refute, somehow have no idea how to actually refute it
> unaware just how deeply you have been betrayed by your education, such that the average educated man on the street has more practical understanding of what politics is than you do with decades of "experience."