In some cases it tried to make observations in an objective or granular way, while at the same time mixing in sweeping generalizations and hand waving, > You’r

In some cases it tried to make observations in an objective or granular way, while at the same time mixing in sweeping generalizations and hand waving, > You’re in love. > Critically, you get everyone to agree that it’s gauche to discuss the strategic logic of all this. I'm thinking no. Lots of people talk about the expense of marriage. Some go so far as to say "it's just a piece of paper". Everyone doesn't agree there is strategic loss or that "you're in love" is a singular recognizable concept to justifies anything in particular. > You secretly guess that the group is sustained by a minority of true believers who make up critical mass for a larger group of people you, but you never talk about this and neither does anyone else. Nobody talks about this except every atheist from high school forward. Rather than have a nuanced or an informed insightful analysis we get these short statements that both seemed lazy and misrepresenting a supposed underlying zeitgeist. etc It's like reading an antivax manifesto.