when you find awful Discourse on Tumblr and immediately tell the squad

I just read an UNIRONIC Tumblr wall of text unironically reblogged by someone I follow that argues that the rise of antis is due to the advent of 24-hr news "inventing" punditry (because, they argue, they had to, because not enough real things happen in the world to fill a whole day with news otherwise), and hence that punditry didn't exist until the late 90s, and that the spread of punditry and commentary on the news directly caused the erosion of the societal concepts of truth and facts, leading to the organic evolution of antis when young children were naturally led by overexposure to opinion writings and under exposure to fact-based news imparting to mistakenly assume their opinions about reality were more important than reality itself. Another poster then adds that the disappearance of real journalism in the 1990s means that all children brought up after that era aren't taught how to detect bullshit, which used to be learned naturally by exposure to good quality tv news apparently. And then a clown car appears and the last poster emerges and in complete earnestness explains that all of this is actually the result of postmodernism, which they personify as a malignant force actively desirous of eradicating the concept of 'truth' entirely.

And then there's a bunch of tags and stuff earnestly telling everybody to read the whole wall of text because it's really good.



Now my eyes are metaphorically bleeding and I've still got vertigo from the fifteen seconds I read the last response thinking it was sarcasm before the awful truth dawned on me.

Quick question: is a take's heat solely determined by its stupidity or is it partly freshness? Because this last take - 'antis are because postmodernism' - is in one sense SCORCHING, but OTOH 'postmodernism is actively trying to destroy society because it hates truth' is a take so stale that I learned ABOUT it at university as HISTORY. History that happened in part before I was born.