4 ms·
This is a poorly written article coated in the author's hamfisted rant on modern US politics. The Wikipedia page is much more straightforward and in-depth. htt
by swebs 6y ago
This is a poorly written article coated in the author's hamfisted rant on modern US politics. The Wikipedia page is much more straightforward and in-depth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire
- D13Fd 6y agoI thought it was interesting and it accurately describes the use as kind of embarrassing to other attorneys, in a way the Wikipedia article doesn't. I didn't see anything particularly political about it other than the last line (about memes invading the "halls of American power").
- pc86 6y agoThe first several paragraphs are ranting about Dr. Biden and sexism.
- ModernMech 6y agoI didn’t read that as a rant at all. I read that as giving context to debate over titles using a recent example in the news. How was it a rant?
- D13Fd 6y agoThey are not ranting and, honestly, didn’t come across as all that political to me. Those paragraphs are referencing the controversy as a lead-in to an article about the use of esquire, which has little to do with the First Lady. At best you could say that the references to current politics are distracting.
- JasonFruit 6y agoI don't know about rant, but the thick coating of political implication throughout was distasteful. The Wikipedia article has less character, in a good way.