What do you want from this man? Name one other vegan San Francisco yoga instructor and self-described 'culture critic' that's gone out on a limb and opposed Drumpf? Just one. Who's not only called him out for the vicious and hateful way sea creatures disdain differently-widthed pasta, but cut right to heart of it by labeling anyone that might disagree with his exact conclusions literally 'death.'
I mean, of course you wouldn't enjoy this piece. You don't see the world in particularly the one of all possible ways he does, which even he will tell you pretty much makes you "a thug’s knife in your kidney." A piece like this is meant to signal the author's virtue to their peers. Here, we are being shown in much the way a peacock will perform an elaborate threat display, how fiercely the writer will hiss and make little clawing motions in the direction of his perceived enemies. That's you, BTW. Because moral clarity, we're shown, is demonstrated by the harshness of the labels you're willing to apply to people whose views you cannot begin to understand. Much like down-home pragmatism is something you show by declaring your allegiance to your chosen class status.
What you could never understand — seeing as how you're not necessarily voting exactly the same as he is, let alone... I mean just look at you, your belt doesn't even match your shoes for chrissake — is that the Republican nominee is a vulgar, orange little man. That necessarily means the Democratic nominee is a 'lightworker.' Okay, sure, the author may've gotten it ever so slightly wrong the last time around, but false consensus effect is a bitch. Like, /u/spacghoti says, though, we'll establish some kind of form of accountability after the coronation.
The point is he doesn't care to understand what might be going through your mind. More importantly, that's not a problem as far as he's concerned. That's likely to be among the reasons he's not even tried in the slightest. He's put in all the time he needs to work out what sort of strawman he'd like to stare disapprovingly at, so he's set. If you happen to read his column, he's okay with you finding out that your virtue is ruined. The critical thing is, and has been all along, that he's strutted his virtue.
What do you want from this man? Name one other vegan San Francisco yoga instructor and self-described 'culture critic' that's gone out on a limb and opposed Drumpf? Just one. Who's not only called him out for the vicious and hateful way sea creatures disdain differently-widthed pasta, but cut right to heart of it by labeling anyone that might disagree with his exact conclusions literally 'death.'
I mean, of course you wouldn't enjoy this piece. You don't see the world in particularly the one of all possible ways he does, which even he will tell you pretty much makes you "a thug’s knife in your kidney." A piece like this is meant to signal the author's virtue to their peers. Here, we are being shown in much the way a peacock will perform an elaborate threat display, how fiercely the writer will hiss and make little clawing motions in the direction of his perceived enemies. That's you, BTW. Because moral clarity, we're shown, is demonstrated by the harshness of the labels you're willing to apply to people whose views you cannot begin to understand. Much like down-home pragmatism is something you show by declaring your allegiance to your chosen class status.
What you could never understand — seeing as how you're not necessarily voting exactly the same as he is, let alone... I mean just look at you, your belt doesn't even match your shoes for chrissake — is that the Republican nominee is a vulgar, orange little man. That necessarily means the Democratic nominee is a 'lightworker.' Okay, sure, the author may've gotten it ever so slightly wrong the last time around, but false consensus effect is a bitch. Like, /u/spacghoti says, though, we'll establish some kind of form of accountability after the coronation.
The point is he doesn't care to understand what might be going through your mind. More importantly, that's not a problem as far as he's concerned. That's likely to be among the reasons he's not even tried in the slightest. He's put in all the time he needs to work out what sort of strawman he'd like to stare disapprovingly at, so he's set. If you happen to read his column, he's okay with you finding out that your virtue is ruined. The critical thing is, and has been all along, that he's strutted his virtue.