I now lack the juice to fuel the bluster to conceal that I am a simpleton

Overall reaction to the interview

• Many readers found the interview fascinating, funny, and energizing, especially the candor and “plain speech” of the interviewee.
• Others found it nearly unreadable or off‑putting, feeling they were not the target audience despite being avid readers.
• Several praised discovering many unfamiliar words and enjoyed the intellectual challenge; others saw the same feature as needless pretension.

Interview style and interviewer vs. interviewee

• Strong disagreement over the interviewer’s style: some see an “experimental formalist” with dense, theory‑laden, “ten‑dollar word” questions; others see an attention‑seeking, pretentious presence who makes the interview too much about themselves.
• Noted that one pull quote highlighting the piece is from a question rather than an answer, taken as evidence the interviewer is foregrounding themselves.
• Debate over whether the interview was live or email‑based; some clues suggest it was conducted via email.

Wordplay, neologisms, and vocabulary

• The coinage “Mupdeemut” (“made‑up people doing made‑up things”) amused many; some initially tried to use it in real life and found it confusing to others.
• Side discussion on the word “verisimilitude” and its derivatives; comparisons to other multi‑syllabic or technical terms and how they function in different languages.
• Extended thread on “birthed” vs. “berthed” in a quoted metaphor:
  • One side argues “berthed” would better sustain the nautical imagery.
  • The other side defends “birthed” as intentional, mixing metaphors to stress creation and time.

Race, “liberal racism,” and sensitivity editing

• A quoted anecdote about a sensitivity editor objecting to a racial description prompted debate.
• Some criticize this as “liberal racism” that erases race to erase racism.
• Others argue the interviewee’s snark is a “cheap argument” avoiding deeper engagement with what the editor might have meant.
• “Snark vs. smarm” is discussed: snark as sharp critique vs. smarm as tone‑policing moralism.

Capitalization of racial terms

• Substantial thread on capitalizing “Black” but not “white”:
  • Pro‑capitalization side: “Black” is treated as an ethnic/cultural identity shaped by slavery and shared experience, unlike “white,” which is seen as a shifting power category.
  • Critics argue this is inconsistent, racist, or an ideological loyalty signal; some see it as “de‑personifying” or antagonizing white people.
  • Others say all broad color terms (Black, white, Asian, etc.) are oversimplified and context‑bound; usage is highly contested and localized.