> To me, I'm judging the article based on what it's claiming to be. Rather what you, the reader, are judging it to claim to be. > He starts it with a faux lin

> To me, I'm judging the article based on what it's claiming to be. Rather what you, the reader, are judging it to claim to be. > He starts it with a faux linguistic analysis including numbers, faux cultural comparisons, and an analysis of the Japanese language -- which he professes not to know. There's a lot of flexing that goes on with expats here in Japan. Whoever speaks the best Japanese has the most social cred in many ways. Nonetheless, speaking a languages and performing linguistic analyses on the same are quite different tasks that require less overlapping skills than one might imagine at first blush. Are you a linguist in Japanese? If not, then why does your opinion on his linguistic analysis matter? Are you an anthropologist on modern Japan? If not, then what are your credentials for judging his ability to make "cultural comparisons?" Those are intended as rhetorical questions. I dunno. Your and 9nGQluzmnq3M's comments just stike me as meta-inconsistent. I'm trying to inject a little self-awareness into the discussion. In particular 9nGQluzmnq3M's comments about the Japanese language don't line up with my own experience, having used it as the primary language in my personal and professional life for several years. Someone with only a beginning grasp of Japanese flaying someone else with a tad less Japanese; that just strikes me as... harmful.