+<p class="flower-break">⁕ ⁕ ⁕</p>
+
+<div class="dialogue">
+<p><span class="dialogue-character-label">Alice</span>: I'm really concerned about global warming!</p>
+
+<p><span class="dialogue-character-label">Bob</span>: Global warming isn't happening.</p>
+
+<p><span class="dialogue-character-label">Alice</span>Wait, what? If you look at this chart of global temperatures Celcius—</p>
+
+<p><span class="dialogue-character-label">Bob</span>: Oh, _Celsius_. Around here, we _define_ global temperature [TODO: write the end of the line]</p>
+
+<p><span class="dialogue-character-label">Alice</span>: ...</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<p class="flower-break">⁕ ⁕ ⁕</p>
+
+"The emperor is naked!" a little child said.
+
+"Silly child, the emperor is clothed," said the child's father.
+
+The child looked skeptical.
+
+"Okay, sure, he may not be wearing any garments—it would be pretty weird if we were claiming that—but it's desirable for the social construct of clothedness to not depend on whether one is wearing any garments, because doing otherwise would be really mean to people who don't have anything to wear."
+
+<p class="flower-break">⁕ ⁕ ⁕</p>
+
+It's not because the snarky satirical dialogues are _bad_. It's that new dialogues have sharply diminishing marginal utility: loyal readers of _The Scintillating But Ultimately Untrue Thought_ already know the formula (take the bad reasoning used by gender-identity theorists and transpose it on any other situation, to hilarious and absurd effect), and hostile readers will always be able to invent an excuse for why the analogy doesn't apply.