There an irony here that I can't quite articulate.
(I would also argue that the definition offered in the article differs slightly from my understanding of the word - in ways that undermine its point. Mainly by turning the word into a type of person, making it dispositional and limited to certain individuals, rather than an activity/phenomenon common to many. Fancy that.)
(I would also argue that the definition offered in the article differs slightly from my understanding of the word - in ways that undermine its point. Mainly by turning the word into a type of person, making it dispositional and limited to certain individuals, rather than an activity/phenomenon common to many. Fancy that.)