If this had been written by anyone else, I would not have read it in full, let alone considered its theses. The idea(s) seemed abhorrently trivial at first but

If this had been written by anyone else, I would not have read it in full, let alone considered its theses. The idea(s) seemed abhorrently trivial at first but in the end, as with many things of this nature, I am -- badum-psh! -- not so militant against this word or the people that use it. And furthermore, after giving it some thought, I would turn it back around and say that the word "is" bears no fault here but instead lies with this worldview which asserts that the word "is" represents an absolute, static, and singular essence of being, instead of a temporary avatar created by circumstance. This may sound like a weird transition, but the stoics were talking about this (at length) thousands of years ago, and it really cuts at the core of the argument presented here: Who is -- badum-psh! -- the master of your mind? Because the person making this argument I think has clearly ceded control of their mind to an external force whenever a person uses the word "is". It may not be such a popular opinion these days, but I think the world could certainly do with less externalization and more introspective critical thought. I'm on board with the assertions of some form of mind control in advertising slogans. However that is kind of the point, right?