Not everybody is a game-changer, but everybody can make a game-changing impact: Difference between revisions

Not everybody is a game-changer, but everybody can make a game-changing impact (view source)

Revision as of 20:34, 13 October 2020

67 bytes removed , 13 October 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,903

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|shitmaxim|}}
 Let’s put this one through the syllogistic wringer. This means one of two things, either:
-:(a) not everyone ''is'' a [[game-changer]], but everyone ''can be'' a game-changer even though some — most, even — ultimately are not, in which case, so what? What use is someone who could be, but eventually isn’t, a [[game-changer]]? And if we are being [[deterministic]] about it — something the [[JC]] is not usually minded to do, except when proving a point like this one, but still — if it turns out you ''aren’t'' a [[game-changer]] now, then it was as true then as it is now, that you were ''never'' going to be one: you just didn’t know it. In which case, was it ever really true that you ''could'' be a [[game-changer]]? We say no.
+===Not everyone ''is'' a [[game-changer]], but everyone ''can be'' a [[game-changer]]===
+What use is someone who ''could'' be, but eventually ''isn’t'', a [[game-changer]]? And if we are being [[deterministic]] about it — something the [[JC]] is not usually minded to do, except when proving a point like this one, but still — if it turns out you ''aren’t'' a [[game-changer]] now, then it was as true then as it is now, that you were ''never'' going to be one: you just didn’t know it. In which case, was it ever really true that you ''could'' be a [[game-changer]]? We say no.
 If not that, then it must seek to draw a distinction between a “[[game-changer]]” and a “person who makes a game-changing impact”. But the latter seem, to your correspondent, to be the very definition of the former. Building in our previous learning, we can extract the following: