You are not.

Right there with G B.I.G. - though my practice can always use some practice.

I think a lot of this is that people just don't understand rhetoric at all anymore.

Plucking out your eye lest it offend you is a pretty 'chums' bit - it's very 'this is not you, this is a part of you and you can control it.'

If you are interested in a very rigorous defense of Christianity as the most progressive challenge to western culture I heartily recommend looking into Terry Eagleton on the subject.

They do really great low key community relations work.

I am similarly intrigued/ambivalent, but he has such a great group around him and his writing is SO good - it's hard not to give it a chance.

Yup.

I always have a suspicion that it's a behavior that varies on some mysterious regional, ethnic, class rubric, because while I have recognized that behavior and seen that behavior - locally it's WAY more common for people to get very hostile about people saying sorry in any context other than absolute apology.

I don't know. At the time people described it as a tremendously moving and passionate performance. Maybe restraint went a long way in the Clinton era.

I like the Texas version where an intern waits in line for your BBQ. It's so wonderfully demeaning it really brightens the experience for everyone.

Did anyone catch the throwaway line in The Unbreakable Kimmie Schmidt where Jacqueline mentions that her husband is at a Captain Phillips fantasy weekend?

yeah.

Well, he was always spoofing the 'giant-headedness' of it all. I think there was an interview here where he did a comparison between the way pundits put together their 'brand' and the Sun-King's work at Versailles.

Usually, you're looking at a few factors in framing the question:
1. Observance versus Belief.
2. How you parse a profession.

Yeah, after testifying on immigration I think he felt - Maybe there is a role for satire in the real discussion after all! - and then like mid-way through the Super-Pac it was all, "Well, this tiger is pulling its own tail way too effectively."

I think the inaction was less horrifying than the joke being incapable of actually going further than the cartoonish reality.

Colbert seemed to use to appreciate the form of it, but I think the SuperPac thing was just the beginning of the end. Like the dwarves he dug too greedily and too deep for mith-ego.

Well, (A) it's important not to fall in with the fallacy of 'physics envy'* when evaluating disciplines and (B) the Ontological Argument was originally created as an argument 'even an idiot would understand' it's obviously a good example of theological practice (building arguments that work for a variety of…

To put it another way:
If you are a hydrological engineer what matters to you - as you teach - is that some of your students get it RIGHT and continue to carry the lessons forward. It's very good if a broader audience understands what's awesome about what you do, but they don't actually have to understand what you do.