Bloomberg's comment is the best part in there.

I wonder what the point of these types of articles are? We can certainly agree that there's something icky about this activism, but... Who cares? I'm much less annoyed by Bloomberg's egotistical desire to help people than I am by Peter Thiel's attempt to undermine the founding principles of this country. Yet for some reason publications like Palladium like to give a smug critique of activists(that are all left wing for some reason), and give cover to reactionary idiocy.

All of these sneeringly cynical articles come from the same place: if these people are sincere in their beliefs, then I am a piece of shit. Since I am not a piece of shit, all of these people must be insincere in their beliefs.

Like any persuasive argumentation, it’s not like there aren’t grains of truth sprinkled throughout. But the core drive to expose the hidden reasons behind everything and a refusal to take people at their word and accept sincerity ultimately does not come from a place of truth finding, but cope.

2/3 of the piece rambles across various notions of conspicuous consumption (or lack there of) from Medieval society to descriptions of the family in Peter Pan (Bang-a-rang) or Jane Austin. Only then arriving at activism. Why not just take it as wrote, we get it, and get to the leap of logic that activism replaces handbags?