Setting aside the arguments in this piece, it’s a very good example of why the royal We should be banned from op-ed writing: one doesn’t need to make the (instantly disprovable) case that everyone already agrees with its thesis in order to make the case for the thesis itself. Indeed, if universal agreement were in fact real, there’d be no point in writing the piece at all except to state an obvious consensus (of which this piece most definitely is not). It’s this unsupported claim that pushes the piece, in my humble opinion, into the terrain of outrage-bait.