I don't think you have to read the tea leaves of "trolling intent" to evaluate a Yglesias take. Whatever his intent, he lays out his reasoning transparently, an

I don't think you have to read the tea leaves of "trolling intent" to evaluate a Yglesias take. Whatever his intent, he lays out his reasoning transparently, and you can decide for yourself if it holds water. I wouldn't blindly adopt a Slow Boring headline as my own opinion because Matt Said It, but I wouldn't do that for any other opinion-haver either. I'd rather have a well-argued contrarian take that the author doesn't really believe, than a badly-argued one that the author genuinely believes.