Without a link to the original study, it’s hard to say anything beyond the obvious. There are probably a whole load of factors involved - for instance rich white people skewing the results heavily. You’d need to do a more in-depth analysis to say anything definitive.

They should replace it with this:

He can take several seats.

Surely you meant drop bears.

That looks so fucking good.

Yeah, I got suckered.

godDAMNit... I totally fell for the “reasonable disagreement” act.

“Problematic” isn’t limited to use with people, though, although I understand your point that we’re oversaturated with the word itself at this point. A lot of words and phrases have gotten like that of late (largely in response to trump).

I have to admit that I’m confused by your taking issue with my use of the word “problematic”. A large, inflexible bureaucracy poses a problem. Sure, it’s not “problematic” in the same way that trump is problematic, but that doesn’t make my usage incorrect.

Counterpoint: Bureaucracies tend to be resistant to change, and quite often the response to an ineffective bureaucratic structure is simply to make it larger, which has a tendency to make it even more inefficient and resistant to attempts to fix it. This problem was noted by Frank Herbert in the Dune series, where he…

This needs way more stars.

I can’t avoid thinking of “Stiverson”, from Caveman’s Valentine.

You just want the glove.

Which is why I said “Lovecraftian”. There’s plenty in the mythos to work with.

Schrödinger’s Cat +/-1

They’ll be okay, because they’re “christian”. *exaggerated air-quotes*

... And with strange eons even Death may die.

It’s a blend of the two. There are old families with generational wealth who insert their desires (by means of their wealth and influence) into our politics. The resulting policies benefit capital in general and allow wealth to further influence policy.

Oh yeah, we’re fucking doomed. 

You have bested me. I will now sulk and plot my revenge.