It seems ridiculing in the context of a mutually ridiculing discussion. If you're saying it isnt a mutually ridiculing discussion, rather, it's taking place in

It seems ridiculing in the context of a mutually ridiculing discussion. If you're saying it isnt a mutually ridiculing discussion, rather, it's taking place in a context of affected ridicule for the amusement of its interlocutors -- fine. I don't know the context, if that is it, then I am wrong. However from the author's comments here about how obnoxious the other guy is, I believe my view is more likely to be correct. NB. You can infer intent from style. You can infer intent from anything we all do it constantly as a requisite part of ordinary human interaction, and it is often very successful. "Intent" isnt some radically internal part of an inaccessible void, it's the motivator for your actions which is often trivial to infer in a given context. However, with anything, inferences may be wrong -- this does not make them ordinarily so, impossible, or generally suspicious. I think intent matters to (1) and (2), it doesnt matter to (3). The claim I was defending, that this article is (somewhat) shaming and this claim be interpreted as any combination of 1/2/3. Personally my view is that it is all of them (possibly, justifiably so).