I didn't like the intro either. The rest of the article is much better.

Came here to say this. The intro seemed to think it was much more clever than it really is. It's very easy to pick descriptive language vague enough that it applies to multiple subjects. I had to stop reading after that.

I think it does. The ending is the most interesting part, so perhaps browse there?

It gets better

"condescending"? Was there a particular passage which you feel had the 'superior talking down to inferior' characteristic?

Dialectical arguments tend to long, boring, and esoterical. I found the intro a mix of jocular and dialectical, which for me turned out to be the payoff for some of the article's repetitiveness.

Yes.

Same here, I ducked out. The title as well.