What in the world does he even mean:
I read this five times and still can't figure it out. Is he suggesting that if something, say a particular industry, is failing therefore nobody within it can be good at what they do? For example, is he saying that if the music industry experienced a decline in sales there can be no talented musicians? I have no clue, since I can't believe he would mean something that ridiculous.
Sam Rocha is my former editor at Patheos, and I don't remember him acting this goofy back then. Like so many, he's beyond being a cautionary tale. He has become a symbol for that malady we suffer under today in which an entire class of self-appointed experts with diplomas of the college decide they must be more brilliant than the hoi polloi because they have diplomas of the college.
God save a nation when that is what constitutes being in the societal driver's seat.
Perhaps he meant to say “there” in point B rather than “they”? That would make a bit more sense at least word wise. Though I’m with you on the ultimate analysis. The idol of education... maybe more like the idol of educational credentials... seems to create a plethora of what one of your other posters referred to at “midwits”.
ReplyDeleteAnd God help us that they assume they are in charge because of their credentials!
DeleteI'm not sure that would change much of the problem. He seems to be saying that difficulties with a particular thing means nobody within that thing can claim to be effective at anything. Since that is beyond the ballpark loony to say, I'm groping for some other meaning, I just can't find it.
DeleteThe ambiguity in his statement is the “proportionately true” part. Which implies both can be true, but not to the same level. Clearly he’s trying to walk walk the JM, SJ line here. Regardless, it’s a waste of words.
Delete*proportionally true
DeleteYeah, that does seem to be the 'get out of rhetorical jail free' card. Problem is, if that is the case, then the entire post is meaningless. What does he mean by proportionally true in that case? Refer to the music industry example. How would that apply in any meaningful way?
DeleteI suppose that this idea is also applicable to the MSM. Since they are losing credibility then there are no worthy journalists to be found among them. You know like what's good for the goose is good...
ReplyDeleteI've found that more and more articles and comments from liberals mean absolutely nothing and are devoid of all reason and logic. Just think of this: Man can be a woman and vice versa? If you believe that then you are open to anything sane or insane. This is where we stand. Don't tell me this is not scary.
ReplyDeleteThis is true. If you are on the side that defends this, or at least has to tolerate it, I don't think sweating clarity is going to be high on the list of priorities. In fact, it might be better to shoot for the more obscure, if not downright loony. That way you don't stand out when you must rush to defend the idea that gender doesn't exist unless convenient.
Delete(Tom NewPoster)
ReplyDeleteSounds like he's saying things because he thinks other people expect him to say them: a sort of verbal Masonic handshake (John Cleese version). Like a bird call, it makes sense to others of the same flock, but may be opaque to outsiders.
There were 15 likes at that time, so apparently 15 people thought it was a wonderful thing to say. Which is, to me, more bothersome than what was said.
Delete