It seems strange to visit someone's blog and then inquire "what is the purpose of what you wrote?" I don't really feel as though there is any 'purpose' to the post insofar as we didn't scour the internet and then reflectively consider "what could we add to the Tao Lin/Megan Boyle noise"; rather it seems obvious that the reaction sort of went like this: Megan Boyle and Tao Lin annoy me --> Tao Lin didn't annoy me previous to 'MDMA Films'/drug videos --> [insert commentary].

I have a few things to say about the charge that we are 'targeting her.' First, although I didn't primarily author the post (there are two of us, remember), I have read things by Megan before, all of them on the Thought Catalog, I believe. I enjoyed them. But I didn't recognize her name, nor did I know anything about her 'persona' previous to her emergence as Tao's best gal. As far as the claim that our approach is 'subjective' I have to ask, isn't all criticism subjective? If by subjective you mean 'incorporates biases and doesn't approach her work from an objective standpoint' then I have to ask... isn't all criticism subjective? It seems ridiculous to have even a mildly progressive worldview and yet still cling to the notion that one can objectively judge someone or something outside of their subjective perspective. Plus, does it matter whether I factor in the years of quality or respected work she may or may not have done when I claim that her current behavior is irritating? Because if not--and I don't think it does--then really you're just taking issue with the fact that I didn't give praise for her 'legitimate' work before criticizing her for the 'publicity stunts'/drug videos, in which case (like I said before) her previous work is irrelevant.