The New York Times discovers soccer and it's truly, truly awful

Much like, apparently, Americans and soccer, there was a time I could float along in a happy bubble of ignorance, pretending for all practical purposes that the New York Times' Style section didn't exist, while it dutifully compiles groundbreaking reports on truly unique trends.

That time appears to be fading quickly. With interest from the Times' Style section booming, soccer is no longer the ironic selfie of the sporting realm: common knowledge everywhere but in the pages of the New York Times.

Snark aside, the Times has produced a trend story so dead set on affirming all the douchey stereotypes of soccer fans it borders on parody.

It truly has everything: Mentions of MFA's, horn-rimmed glasses, publishing and Brooklyn, a comparison between the Yankees and Manchester United and a digital brand strategist, who grew up in one of the country's most expensive places to live, and calls another home, lauding Liverpool's blue collar ethos, right before the author jumps headlong into a bit about authenticity.

It's one of the great examples of reverse reporting -- writing a story, then finding the sources needed to fill the column inches -- of our time.

Because not every soccer fan is so dedicated to the facade of authenticity semantics like "supporting" instead of "rooting" and "clubs" instead of "teams" becomes paramount. And most of us certainly don't refer to the world's most popular sport as an "alternative sport," like it's skateboarding for hip, urban adults.

So of us even attend games live, perish the thought.

I mean, I realize this is pretty much par for the course for the Style section, but if they could refrain from making people think I'm an asshole, even if it is a bunch of relatively well-off people in middle age, I'd appreciate it. I'm entirely capable of that all on my own, thank you very much.