Lots of words and vagueness without much of a point (other than someone really didn't like being called a grifter on twitter dot com, I guess?). After reading t

Lots of words and vagueness without much of a point (other than someone really didn't like being called a grifter on twitter dot com, I guess?). After reading the entire piece I have no idea what the author is really alluding to, and they have to be alluding to something because it wouldn't sound eerily specific otherwise. Why not just state your point with the example at hand instead of uselessly theorizing? Seriously, this is what happens when you take online too seriously - using grandiloquent words like orthodoxy, skandalon, attention economy or citing Girard and Durkheim as though this weren't about petty spats no one outside Weird Twitter has ever heard about. If your reputation and livelihood doesn't depend on your being extremely online, why would you care about this stuff? If it does, and you actually profit from talking about this stuff and playing contrarian, how can you object to being called a grifter?