[jl2718]

I don’t disagree with the article. There’s almost no content to disagree with. The journalist picked bad experts and provided nothing but character assassination persiflage under the appeal to authority fallacy. This is a top-level publication, so it’s not unreasonable to suggest commonality with the profession.

Why say this? Because I’ve learned that the mendacity of paid experts and journalists goes unchecked when ordinary people say nothing, and quite often the crowd opinion of people with nothing to gain is more trustworthy.

[refulgentis]

There's a ton of things to disagree with -- ex. as you said, they're being paid to tell lies.

I don't think it's respectful to you to pretend there's no content in the article.

I don't think you're foolish, and simultaneously believe A) nothing was said B) nothing disagreeable was said C) they were paid to say lies.

That'd be an incoherent rant, and you're perfectly legible.