Not "his source of information" instead it is used (as an example) to indicate how many sub-categorizations there are.

From the guidelines:

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

His easily presentable example. We don't know about his actual sources. Just like if I'm trying to explain the internet to a normie, I'll use a simple colourful diagram, not a stack of raw RFCs - even though I read them.

Surely the fact they've linked to a shopping site backs up the opening paragraphs.

> Those are attractive people with heavily vetted idiosyncrasies. Every eccentric fashion choice has been run through a think tank of NYU undergrads that would blow your hair back

> But their actual deal is cookie-cutter counterculture, like it came out of a street punk paint-by-numbers kit

It's worse than a shopping site, the whole article seems to be AI generated. Certainly the images are - even the confusing "goth family tree" at the beginning of the article is clearly Dall-E/ChatGPT prompted with just that, with labels edited in after the fact in a way that makes the whole thing nonsense. It's the exact kind of slop the article complains about, and I'd go so far as to say it's anti-information, because you can't trust any of it.

More than a shallow criticism, the fact that the article links to it at all puts the whole thing in question.