/3 There are almost always multiple possible, equally correct interpretations - and choosing between them is just as subjective (and usually ideologically informed) as attempting to determine purpose in context.

/2 But *textualism is subjective too*.

For a text written by humans the length of a law *there just is no single, objectively correct interpretation based purely on the text*...

/2 The coffee thing clearly not a moral status threat. Is it still a status threat of a kind (as he suggests - being perceived as 'basic')? Or is there actually no threat here and the status assertion ("I am better than people who drink effete coffees") is coming from elsewhere?

A parent who understood elite education would have been able to tell her that the 'BA' things is meaningless to the content, and of the value of 'hyperelite' educational credentials.

Of course you can look that up online, but it's not the same as having it 'internalised' /2

it managed to keep track of a lot of the underlying data much better than I expected.

He was actually talking about watching E4 vs. Channel 4, but I think it works

Relevant to joining social media, it also contains my version of an old Stewart Lee joke: "The internet is a flood of sewage that comes unbidden into your home. Social media is like you constructed a sluice to let it in"

Do people think it's higher status to get lots of engagement on your post about something that's already popular VS. to post about something obscure but get less engagement. Also do people seek external validation of the popularity of the target before making a status judgement?

Could presumably test this by experimentally varying two variables about video/post: 1) popularity of target (e.g. musician, restaurant etc.), 2) engagement with post.

The right persuades people that trans women are a threat to 'real women' so we have to 'meet the public where they are'. There is no belief that the Left could possibly persuade the public of anything.