That's 31.6% of eligible voters
46% of eligible voters may not have actively wanted it, but they were okay enough with it to not bother voting against it.
Yes... that's why they use the word "could".
This is how research works and what reasonable science reporting looks like.
There were no promises or wild claims made in the article.
Sometimes the "realism" critique is certainly pedantic and unproductive, but other times what's really meant is contradiction. Situations should make sense within the fictional world. And in the fictional world of DC, norms around politics and economics are portrayed to be analogous to western neoliberalism with capitalism assumed and unquestioned. So with the Wayne family being a relatively well-regarded billionaire family like the Gates or the Buffets, there is still the issue that it is clear under the current system and that portrayed in DC universe that such wealth cannot be accumulated and sustained without massive exploitation of working class people somewhere along the line. So billionaire + "good guy" starts to become more of a glaring contradiction even in DC. But sure, we can explain it away as fiction with magically ethical capitalists. The interesting thing about the billionaire Wayne discussion though, is when people apply this fictional view of capitalism to how they interpret the real world. And now we're back to propaganda.
What I would say that sets West Wing and B99 apart is sometimes there's a tonal difference or way in which certain themes are handled/portrayed that signals to the viewer that the writers acknowledge this isn't what real life is like but we hope one day we can get there. And it's a spectrum right. Some do this to varying degrees, other more propagandistic media do not.
This is not a generational shift. The iron dome of irony is a tried and true coping technique for the brutality of teenage culture where the rule of cool rules with an iron fist and being uncool means social death. And what is cool shifts at a moment's notice, yet uncool is forever. So normies learn to armour themselves by treating everything ironically to pre-empt any whiff of uncool. Because at the very least, it's never uncool to make fun of something. This carries forward into one's 20s when some begin to rediscover the coolness of being authentic, sincere, and genuine regardless of what others think. So then you have the reaction of radical acceptance, not yucking others' yum, respect for others' interests, etc. GenX had their equivalent, even Boomers. It's part of growing up. And of course not everyone gets there.
Well yes you are absolutely correct from a materialist standpoint. If you limit reality to material things, then truths are limited to material knowledge. Emergent properties such as subjective experience, society/culture, and ultimately meaning and meaningfulness are excluded from what is considered reality and truth, except for their material correlates. And this is why philosophers moved on from materialism because, while highly fruitful, it was ultimately insufficient in capturing all forms of knowledge.
I prefer a pragmatic blend of constructivist realism.
I see it as a heightened period of different people "trying shit out" when it comes to new gender identities. None of these are necessarily definitive norms that will define future society. As with any aspect of language and culture, it's a part of an ongoing process of evolutionary change, adaptation, and discovery. Some might call it a church, some might call it a shifting paradigm, but it's always going to be a bit messy and won't necessarily make perfect sense right away.
Well awktshualy, read the whole definition entry. Pendants are always so eager to ignore lay meanings.