How is it that a person can be labelled as "suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome" or be criticised with the "struggling for relevancy" barb?
Is this type of criticism targeted at the person specifically for "appearing" to struggle for relevancy?
"The poor blighter thinks that there are relevant things that he might do, the deluded chap. But nothing is relevant. Vincent's struggle to achieve relevancy is ridiculous."
Or is it more of a maliciously targeted low blow? The critic fully aware that nothing is really relevant, yet wishes to point out how little value or power he believes the target person carries?
"The poor blighter thinks that there are relevant things that he might do, the deluded chap. Nothing is relevant. Vincent's struggle for relevancy is even more ridiculous because even if a person could be relevant he clearly doesn't have it in him."
But what if the critic actually believes that there are relevant things that the person should be doing?
In this last case the critic is declaring his own belief that there are relevant things that one can do in the world, and that he, the critic, not only knows about relevant things but is relevant himself!
"I am relevant and Vincent is not. Got that?"