Mike, the reason you think it's avoiding an editorial is because there was nothing "there" for McLaughlin to respond to. Also, can we please erase from our entire vocabulary and cultural dialogue any variation or repetition of the phrase, "let's be clear?" In the last 12 years that phrase has been beaten into the ground as some pseudo-au…
Mike, the reason you think it's avoiding an editorial is because there was nothing "there" for McLaughlin to respond to. Also, can we please erase from our entire vocabulary and cultural dialogue any variation or repetition of the phrase, "let's be clear?" In the last 12 years that phrase has been beaten into the ground as some pseudo-authoritative way of saying "I'm declaring for you right now the absoluteness of my statements, thereby rendering dissent obsolete and useless." Please.
Mike, the reason you think it's avoiding an editorial is because there was nothing "there" for McLaughlin to respond to. Also, can we please erase from our entire vocabulary and cultural dialogue any variation or repetition of the phrase, "let's be clear?" In the last 12 years that phrase has been beaten into the ground as some pseudo-authoritative way of saying "I'm declaring for you right now the absoluteness of my statements, thereby rendering dissent obsolete and useless." Please.
I feel a visceral sense of communion with Nietzsche and his description of staring into the abyss when I read your comment.
Says the Atheist
I’ll try to be less clear in the future, so as not to threaten your ideological comfort zone.
To my original point, I don't think less clarity is possible, but que sera, sera
And yet clarity without comprehension is a curse all its own. I suppose we’re both staring at the same page, but only one of us is reading.
Wouldn't be the first errant supposition on your part and that's just in one article!