“He’s more than what you’ll ever be.”

—Ian Mendoza, whoever the hell he is, an “X” commenter whose profile says “It’s okay to be anti-Israel don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise”

Out of the mouths of morons occasionally come enlightening idiocy!

Ian was delivering what he thought was a crushing retort to critics of the latest Trump Deranged rant from actor Mark Ruffalo, this one at the Golden Globes. Ruffalo’s name now comes up #1 on Google if you search for “Anti-Trump actor,” just ahead of Robert DeNiro. Like DeNiro, Ruffalo is an excellent actor; also like DeNiro (and a surprising number of seemingly intelligent actors), he is a political, historical, critical thought-deprived ignoramus. The actor was prominently wearing the anti-I.C.E. “Good” pin at the awards show, which I consider signature significance. His latest rant was so fatuous it isn’t worth my time to fisk it, but I was impressed with Ian’s comment.

It perfectly encapsulates the logical fallacy that makes so many Americans pay attention to the outbursts of Dunning-Kruger suffering celebrities. Ruffalo, like AOC, was a bartender for almost a decade, not that there’s anything wrong with that. But he apparently got the idea that he was some kind of public policy guru by winning arguments with drunks. Other than mixology, his only other occupational pursuit of any duration has been acting, which he began in earnest in high school and then immediately entered the professional ranks upon graduation. Wikipedia tells us Ruffalo attended “progressive schools,” so he is a cautionary tale in the perils of ideological indoctrination.

Yet Ian’s retort to a Ruffalo critic implies that Ruffalo’s success as an actor (producer, director, yada yada) means that he believes that the common folk can’t credibly challenge him. It is the equivalent of the old taunt, “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?” The logic of this fallacious query—you can substitute “famous” for rich without changing the crux of the question—is that the rich, famous and powerful by definition must be authorities whose opinions on anything have intrinsic value. Thus it is that people like Whoopie Goldberg and Joy Behar have a platform on ABC News to spout spectacularly ridiculous opinions on matters they are unqualified to opine on. Thus it is that various Jenners are considered “influencers.”

In addition, Ruffalo’s defender shot his barb at someone he knew nothing about, other than the fact that he wasn’t famous. Ian doesn’t know that Ruffalo is “more” than the individual he is insulting, except by a biased and infantile definition of “more.” Acting isn’t nothing, but neither is it everything. This nation has millions of people who have had productive, successful, beneficent lives that accomplished those individuals’ own goals and objectives while leaving the world a little better than they left it. Those lives will still be quickly forgotten, like Ruffalo’s will, as the metaphorical sands of time wash over them. Who can say which of those lives were “more”?

Certainly not Ian.

Ian’s Retort—should I add it to the Rationalizations List?—is the mantra of all of those shallow of mind who worship celebrities and encourage them to spout off on issues they know no more about, and often less, than the average barfly.

Well, thanks to me, I guess, he’s accomplished something positive in his life.

Why ain’t he rich?