> I’m not sure there’s much value continuing to read the article, it’s already so incoherent. It goes on to address exactly the problems you noticed, at length

> I’m not sure there’s much value continuing to read the article, it’s already so incoherent. It goes on to address exactly the problems you noticed, at length (I'm not finished with the whole thing yet, but I'm far enough to be well past what through you off). I've seen similar "bounced off" reports and complaints of "obvious" problems with, for example, Graeber's writing, which problems, if one keeps reading, he calls out and addresses—it's a certain writing style that starts with assertions that implicitly invite the reader to notice issues with them, then goes on to outline and address those same issues. If you don't keep reading it does look like the author's just an idiot, I guess. In this case, I think they're doing it in service of a readership that may not be familiar with the tangled intellectual history and often, in fact, contradictory tradition of what goes under the umbrella term of "liberalism". To be fair, I haven't finished the whole thing, and it's possible it has grave problems farther in, but that's not one of them.