[drglitch]

The author tries to make some fair points based on anecdotal evidence, but at its core, the article simply states that "I had a strong opinion about X that i imposed upon others. After being influenced by a romantic interest, I biased in another direction. Now I have a (new) strong opinion that i wish to impose upon others.".

In other words, the fundamental act is still same, it is just opinion that has changed.

[chillingeffect]

This is a deep observation and it's how a lot of Art works: it's not the immediate object/product/action that makes sense. It's when you put it into a context to generate meaning.

To persevarate: I'm sure if the author ever breaks up, he'll cop to being led around by his hormones. In the meantime, his unaware writing is a bold sample of the process of mental rationalization.

And in that way, the artist is often in a bind: to intentionally produce a work that reveals an unconscious incorrectness, in order that other can properly contextualize it. The artist must be wrong in order to be right, to ruin their reputation to grow one.

[calinet6]

He didn't work to change his opinions at all, if you read the article. He simply came up with a strategy to try to change others opinions in a different way.

This ain't no artist.