The idea presented in the article conveys to people that being cool is important and good. Cool is also code for Democrat or, at least, absolutely not Republican.
That seems a stretch. I mean, cowboys were cool to 8 year old me and are still pretty cool to 48 year old me, and I'm pretty sure they would be Republicans. Ditto racecar drivers, fighter pilots etc.
Interpreting cool as "absolutely not Republican" seems like a tacit acknowledgement that the Republicans have severely damaged their brand. Perhaps by their embrace of MAGA.
The literal title of the article mentions coolness.
This appears to be a form of projection, where you think you can internet bully me into liking an article about cool tattooed people by telling me it's an "internalized" problem.
But I moved on from it. I canceled my subscription. I'll never give NG money, and you're just going to have to deal with that. Sorry. Maybe you can give them your money.
You're clearly more emotional about the subject than anyone else in this thread. For what it's worth, the "internalized" problem I was referring to was suggesting that National Geographic was some kind of propadanga that pushed "democrat = cool".
