Sometimes, I feel like conversation is just a way to talk to oneself, by using others as mirrors of what we want to believe. That article had that vibe.

I don't care about the show, the author doesn't know why she cares that much about the show, and I really, really don't understand what caring has to do with seeing the same show several times.

>Whenever somebody asks why, I don’t have a good answer.

I'll suggest the author (and everyone reading this) to really, really sit down and think of why they like the things they like. What are the variables that clicked for me when I interact with X ? The theme ? The way the thing is made ? The echo and specific resonance it has with my inner life ?

I would have gained much more from that article if the author had gone to the trouble of making me connect with the show in that way.

I agree with the sentiment, it is good to care, it is admirable and perhaps virtuous to care.

But it is not cool to care. Cool does mean detached, offhand, poised, aloof, unperturbed. That's why it's called "cool".

We don't need to hijack the term and pretend that it's cool to be enthusiastic and dorky and to talk too loudly when we get excited about something. The point is that those things are good even if they're not cool.

A good book in this topic, Virtue Hoarders by Catherine Liu.

https://www.upress.umn.edu/9781517912253/virtue-hoarders/

https://classautonomy.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Foreru...