Nothing about the arguments in the article are convincing. It seems he merely shoehorning a collection of disparate anecdotes into a predetermined (probably pol

Nothing about the arguments in the article are convincing. It seems he merely shoehorning a collection of disparate anecdotes into a predetermined (probably politically motivated) thesis. One which does not have a precise meaning, to boot. What does it mean, anyway, to be "subversive", simpliciter?