Hi Trevor1 - It seems to me that you don't know what your point is in this post and your various responses. And you are casting various aspersions in this last post without backing those up either. Shrug emoji.
Most of this looks like motivated reasoning. You're trying to reinvent the wheel, and you're falling into the usual pitfalls that have trapped people smarter and better people than either of us.
Huh? You are just using words here without any meaning associated with them. I listed a bunch of article that are recession alarmist to counter your assertion...
This is a very bad take. It is plausibly true that the wsj does not have your (whoever you are) best interests at heart. But this post has done nothing to substantiate that view. The OP has cherry picked a single article that happens to have a time horizon the OP does not like and used that to imply (the OP implies in the post but more explicitly asserts in comments) that the wsj has a mendacious and overarching objective to "persuade millions of people that There Is No Recession". If the article referred to is proof positive of this (in a win for synecdoc...
This is a good take targeted at the wrong example, I think. (Though, I understand why it was the impetus for your take.) I’d argue one wants expressly identity based opinions (like the velentine one) to be filled with all the assumptions that make that opinion actually (or potentially) interesting. If valentine tried to hem and haw and be inclusive he would have provided a less interesting observation. It is then all the other articles that purport not to be expressly identity based that are the problem when they encapsulate all the identity assumptions and implicitly present them as the norm/standard/goes-without-saying-ness that are the problem.