I think this thread lost its way at least 16 pages or more ago.
The most fascinating thing about this thread, now that we are 646 posts deep, is that it all began with a Newsweek article built largely on the 'opinion' of two writers (allegedly journalists), who themselves were interpreting the results of various public 'opinion' surveys.
Those surveys being based purely on the 'opinions' of the people who responded to them. This thread is mostly our 'opinions' of an 'opinionated' article of the 'opinions' of others, with some cultural stereotypes thrown in for good measure. You see where this is going, right? This thread was never going to come to a conclusion, was it. Especially when some then felt it necessary to introduce moral bombshells and rhetorical steamrolling of others. Some seem to thrive on that type of thing, as though it is a personal necessity.
As I've said in an earlier post, we know nothing about who was surveyed, what the questions were, how representative the data might be, or even what methodology was used to analyse it all. But somehow, this long chain of loosely tethered 'opinions' at times goes into a full-blown battlefield -- with some attempting at humour to try to pull it out again.
What we then see here is some people getting genuinely passionate, and in some cases, downright combative, as they offer up their own 'opinions' on the 'opinions' of journalists and of a survey they know little about. And no doubt some of these people think they are clever!
Then the thread seems to spiral into some kind of feedback loop, where we are all treated to increasingly fervent posts, some of which attempt to anchor the conversation with historical or moral arguments that often feel like they were transported in from a number of entirely different threads. What a fascinating spectacle, and we have all become part of the show. Who really are the clever ones here?