Is The Word ‘Queer’ Expanding Its Meaning, Or Losing It? When Everyone Can Be ‘Queer’, Is Anyone?

Jenna Wortham: “Facebook, which can be seen as a kind of social census, now offers nearly 60 different gender options … Plainly, we are in the midst of a profoundly exhilarating revolution. And ‘queer’ has come to serve as a linguistic catchall for this broadening spectrum of identities, so much so that people who consider themselves straight, but reject heteronormativity, might even call themselves queer. But when everyone can be queer, is anyone?”

The Sliding Value Of Facts In A Social Media-Saturated World

“We are caught in a series of confusing battles between opposing forces: between truth and falsehood, fact and rumour, kindness and cruelty; between the few and the many, the connected and the alienated; between the open platform of the web as its architects envisioned it and the gated enclosures of Facebook and other social networks; between an informed public and a misguided mob. What is common to these struggles – and what makes their resolution an urgent matter – is that they all involve the diminishing status of truth.”

Ragers And Tantrum-Throwers Now Have A Diagnosis In The DSM Because Their Brains Are Wired That Way

“Given enough frustration, it’s normal and healthy to get angry. But for a subset of the U.S. population – some 7 percent of adults, according to the National Institute of Mental Health – the propensity to fly off the handle is so great that they can be professionally diagnosed with ‘Intermittent Explosive Disorder,’ or IED.” (Yes, IED as in improvised explosive device.)

We Assume Meritocracy Is The Proper Order Of The World (But What If It’s Not?)

“The basic idea—that we should rank candidates for power according to some desirable quality, then pick the best of them—seems too obvious to have needed inventing, but invented it was, and (at least in the West) not so long ago. If we go back to the occasion of its first appearance in the English-speaking world, we will find a group of men who opposed it, not just because they did not think it would work in practice, but because they disagreed with it in principle.”