The more fatalistic will add that hypocrisy is baked, or fried, into every consumer experience—that unbridled corporate power makes it impossible to bring your wallet in line with your morals. Still, there’s something especially distasteful about Chick-fil-A, which has sought to portray itself as better than other fast food: cleaner, gentler, and more ethical, with its poultry slightly healthier than the mystery meat of burgers. Its politics, its décor, and its commercial-evangelical messaging are inflected with this suburban piety. A representative of the Richards Group once told Adweek, “People root for the low-status character, and the Cows are low status. They’re the underdog.” That may have been true in 1995, when Chick-fil-A was a lowly mall brand struggling to find its footing against the burger juggernauts. Today, the Cows’ “guerrilla insurgency” is more of a carpet bombing. New Yorkers are under no obligation to repeat what they say. Enough, we can tell them. NO MOR.
The New Yorker of yore was always liberal on the occasions when it commented on politics, but the recent punk liberal echo chamber stuff really sullies it's open minded traditions.
I have loved the New Yorker over the years in spite of it's liberal bent, but now it is just as abrasive and pushy about the liberal agenda as the other rags, while trying to clothe it all in some kind of tacky chrome intellectual sheen.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/chick-fil-as-creepy-infiltration-of-new-york-city
Whereas Chipotle must be the heaven sent gift of sustainability (and E. Coli)
I'm so old Brooklyn meant "Real Life Credentials". Now it means "Complete Hard Left Nutcase"