The article is similar though. The "gaze" of the reader is doing all the heavy lifting here. Weiss is relying on us finding e.g. the ribbons indicating proximit

The article is similar though. The "gaze" of the reader is doing all the heavy lifting here. Weiss is relying on us finding e.g. the ribbons indicating proximity preferences, and all the talk titles and so on as silly and as ridiculous as she does. What exactly is there left to engage with when you remove the bad faith ranting against her peers and junior researchers? Personally I don't think the original article itself meets site guidelines. It's culture war content, it's entirely in bad faith, and it's inviting (for the most part) really ugly and uninteresting discussion. There's little to seriously engage with here in a way that meets site guidelines