38 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/evangelical-trump-christians-politics/620469/

      Evangelical Christians have been held together more by political orientation and sociology than they have by a common theology. This has set them up for a schism which has been exacerbated by Donald J. Trump, COVID-19, and social changes.

      Similar to Kurt's quote, "We go to church to see and be seen", too many churches are focused on entertainment and being an ongoing institution that they aren't focusing on their core mission. This is causing problems in their overall identity.

      Time at church and in religious study is limited, but cable news, social media, and other distractions are always on and end up winning out.

      People are more likely to change their church because of politics than to change their politics because of church.

      The dichotomy of maleness and femaleness compound the cultural issues of the evangelical church.

      Southernization of the Church

      Pastors leaving the profession due to issues with a hostile work environment. Some leaving because parishioners are organizing and demanding they be fired.

      Peter Wehner looks at the rifts that are appearing in the Christian evangelical movement in America, some are issues that have been building for a while, while others are exaggerated by Donald J. Trump, the coronavirus, the culture wars, political news, political beliefs, and and hypocrisy.

    2. it isn’t simply the case that much of what is distinctive about American evangelicalism is not essential to Christianity; it is that now, in important respects, much of what is distinctive about American evangelicalism has become antithetical to authentic Christianity. What we’re dealing with—not in all cases, of course, but in far too many— is political identity and cultural anxieties, anti-intellectualism and ethnic nationalism, resentments and grievances, all dressed up as Christianity.
    3. “There have always been mean people who cloak their unkindness in religious devotion,” one minister in a conservative denomination told me.

      I love the phrasing of this.

    4. In his words, “The gentleness of Jesus was utterly discarded” by those who felt he wasn’t championing their cultural and political agendas aggressively enough.

      Height of hypocrisy...

    1. The liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, writing at about the same time as Hawthorne, made a similar argument. Much of his most famous book, On Liberty, is dedicated not to governmental restraints on human liberty but to the threat posed by social conformism, by “the demand that all other people shall resemble ourselves.”
    2. Partisans, especially on the right, now toss around the phrase cancel culture when they want to defend themselves from criticism, however legitimate.

      A solid definition of cancel culture.

    3. After that, she must wear a scarlet A—for adulterer—pinned to her dress for the rest of her life. On the outskirts of Boston, she lives in exile. No one will socialize with her—not even those who have quietly committed similar sins, among them the father of her child, the saintly village preacher.

      Given the prevalence of people towards making mistakes and practicing extreme hypocrisy, we really ought to move toward restorative justice. Especially in the smaller non-capital cases.

    1. Context: Sonia was watching Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath: Season 3: "Episode 1" and had previously been watching a documentary One of Us about people who had left oppressive seeming Hassidic Jewish communities.

      I can't help but that that every culture could be considered a "cult" in which some percentage of people are trapped with comparison to all other cultures on Earth. Based on one's upbringing and personal compass, perhaps living and submitting to one's culture can become oppressive and may seem particularly unfair given power structures and the insidiousness of hypocrisy.

      Given this, could there logically be a utopian society in which everyone lives freely?

      Even within the United States there are smaller sub-cultures withiin which people feel trapped and which have the features of cults, but which are so large as to not be considered such. Even the space in which I freely live might be considered a cult by others who don't agree with it. It's only the vast size of the power of the group which prevents the majority who comfortably live within it from viewing it as a bad thing.

      A Democrat may view the Republican Party as a cult and vice versa, something which becomes more apparent when one polarizes these communities toward the edges rather than allowing them to drift into each other in a consensus.

      An African American may think they're stuck in a broader American cult which marginalizes them.

      A Hassidic Jew may feel they're stuck in a cult (of religious restrictions) with respect to the perceived freedoms of broader American Culture. Some may feel more comfortable within these strictures than others.


      A gender non-comforming person living in the deep South of the United States surrounded by the Southern Baptist Convention may feel they're stuck in a cult based on social norms of one culture versus what they experience personally.


      What are the roots of something being a cult? Could it be hypocrisy? A person or a broader group feeling as if they know "best" and creating a rule structure by which others are forced to follow, but from which they themselves are exempt? This also seems to be the way in which authoritarian rules arise when privileging one group above another based solely on (perceived) power.


      Another potential thing at play here may be the lack of diversity within a community. The level of cult within a society may be related to the shape of the bell curve of that society with respect to how large the center is with respect to the tails. Those who are most likely to feel they're within a "cult" (using the broader definition) are those three or more standard deviations from the center. In non-diverse communities only those within a standard deviation of the norm are likely to feel comfortable and accepted and those two deviations away will feel very uncomfortable while those who are farther away will be shunned and pushed beyond the pale.


      How can we help create more diverse and broadly accepting communities? We're all just people, aren't we? How can we design communities and governments to be accepting of even the most marginalized? In a heavily connected world, even the oddball teenager in a small community can now manage to find their own sub-community using the internet. (Even child pornographers manage to find their community online.)

      The opposite of this is at what point do we circumscribe the norms of the community? Take the idea of "Your freedom to strike me ends at my nose." Perhaps we only shun those extreme instances like murder and pornography, and other actions which take extreme advantage of others' freedoms? [This needs to be heavily expanded and contemplated...] What about the over-financialization of the economy which takes advantage of the unprivileged who don't know that system and are uncapable of the mathematics and computation to succeed. Similarly hucksters and snake oil salesmen who take advantage of their targets' weaknesses and lack of knowledge and sophistication. Or the unregulated vitamin industry taking rents from millions for their superstitions? How do we regulate these to allow "cultural freedom" or "religious freedom" without them taking mass-scale advantage of their targets? (Or are some of these acculturated examples simply inequalities institutionally built into societies and cultures as a means of extracting power and rents from the larger system by those in power?)


      Compare with Hester Prynne and Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter.


  2. Jun 2021
    1. We live in a moment where censorship and free speech are hot button topics. So it’s all the more striking that these anti-CRT bills, with clear intent to limit a discussion of the basic facts of American history and society, are being made into law all over America with minimum protest from the people who yelp the loudest about cancel culture. 

      This is another solid example of the hypocrisy of large portions of the Republican party. Do as we say, not as we do. How far can these laws drift from our overarching principles before there is a schism?

      How does this fit into the [[beyond the pale]] idea going from small communities to a much larger internet-connected society?

    1. One of the more incisive comments about the gap we often see between faith and works sticks with me today: that for too many people of the Christian faith, Jesus is a “hood ornament.”

      Jesus is a "hood ornament."

      searing...

    2. “‘Evangelical’ used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with ‘hypocrite,’” Timothy Keller, one of the most influential evangelicals in the world, wrote in The New Yorker in 2017.

      Interesting.

      I've found myself looking at statements from Republicans over the past several years and tagging them as "hypocrisy".

      I wonder what the actual overlap of the two groups is?

  3. May 2021
    1. The point here is not to defend the uses of surveillance technology in China, the point is to emphasize that when big tech talks about China they are stoking Sinophobia in order to distract from their own malfeasance. By screeching with nationalistic panic “look what they’re doing over there!” the tech companies shift the conversation from what they themselves are doing over here.
  4. Mar 2021
    1. Lori Morimoto, a fandom academic who was involved in the earlier discussion, didn’t mince words about the inherent hypocrisy of the controversy around STWW. “The discussions of the fic were absolutely riddled with people saying they wished you could block and/or ban certain users and fics on AO3 altogether because this is obnoxious,” she wrote to me in an email, “and nowhere (that I can see) is there anyone chiming in to say, ‘BUT FREE SPEECH!!!’” Morimoto continued: But when people suggest the same thing based on racist works and users, suddenly everything is about freedom of speech and how banning is bad. When it’s about racism, every apologist under the sun puts in an appearance to fight for our rights to be racist assholes, but if it’s about making the reading experience less enjoyable (which is basically what this is — it’s obnoxious, but not particularly harmful except to other works’ ability to be seen), then suddenly our overwhelming concern with free speech seems to just disappear in a poof of nothingness.

      This is an interesting example of people papering around allowing racism in favor of free speech.

  5. Feb 2021
    1. “Of course, we want to cut taxes. Who would ever want to pay more taxes? [It] seemed crazy to want to pay more taxes. You know, of course, you want to have a safe and secure community. Who wouldn’t want that?” Miller said. “You know, of course, we want to have a strong military. I just remember reading it and thinking this just makes a lot of sense.” 

      Now tell us how you do both of these things well? What do you think funds a safe and secure community and a strong military?

    1. Repeating in his amorous fits, “Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!”

      This part is funny for many reasons....isn't it reasonable to assume that Celia shits if he (Strephon) shits. It's crazy that this is a discovery worth mentioning. Also, Swift is making fun of and criticizing the imperfections of women, who have, at least, an outward appearance of perfection once they've gone through all of these primping processes. At the same time, it makes me wonder--what do the men look and smell like not ever bothering with any of these transitions?

  6. Dec 2020
    1. conservatives

      Conservatives stand for honesty, integrity, morality, and steely-eyed realism. We hold our opinions because we are confident that they are correct, we have the confidence in them to encourage free and open debate, and if our opinions are shown to be wrong we gratefully accept the correction of our errors.

      Modern liberalism (not to be confused with classical liberalism) is the opposite. It is characterized by dishonesty and immorality (both typically excused with the platitude that "everybody does it"), self-delusion, and a reflexive resort to censorship and worse. ("Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out." -David Horowitz)

      You see that in the climate debates, where leftists (climate activists) have repeatedly been caught manipulating, withholding, exaggerating, or even fabricating evidence, flouting the law, blackballing skeptics, and censoring contrary viewpoints, to promote the CAGW scare. The major blogs, publications, and institutions which climate activists control are ruthlessly censored, to suppress dissent.

      In stark contrast, the most prominent conservative (climate realist) blogs and institutions actively encourage open discussion and dissent. That's why, for example, WUWT is so obviously and strikingly superior to any of the leftists' climate blogs.

      Unfortunately, some people who call themselves "conservative" don't act like it. I'm tired of self-identified conservatives, like Michael Shannon, raging about Republicans' lack of conservatism, while they, themselves, behave like liberals.

      If Mr. Shannon were really a conservative, he wouldn't censor his blog, to suppress expression of opinions different from his own. Unfortunately, that's exactly what he does. That's why you don't see the following comment in the comments section, on this article:

      · ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      1.If conservatives can’t win Republican primaries, they certainly cannot hope to win as third-party candidates running against both Republicans and Democrats.

      2.If so-called “conservatives” don’t care about anything but money, they’re no more conservative than the country clubbers whose Republican identity is based entirely on their desire for low taxes.

      There’s something very, very wrong with a 785-word rant accusing Republicans of being “morally corrupt,” which talks almost exclusively about… money. In 785 words you devoted a grand total of three words to a passing mention of moral issues.

      One in four American babies die by “choice,” but you never mentioned it.

      The courts have spent the last eighty years brazenly lying to impose progressive agendas, and trampling the nation’s fifty-one constitutions in the process, yet now, for the first time in eight decades, honest jurors might actually have a slender majority on the SCOTUS, but you never mentioned it.

      The American family is in tatters, with 39.6% of babies born out of wedlock in 2018, but you used the word “family” just once, and never mentioned illegitimacy.

      The academy has been mostly taken over by far-left crackpots and atheists, who do everything in their power to crush all dissent, who enforce values antithetical to Christian morality, and who have created entire disciplines dedicated to promoting leftist lunacy, but you never mentioned it.

      Academics expose corruption in Grievance Studies

      Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

      The misallocation of federal monies is a real problem, but it is far from the only problem, it is far from our most important problem, and it is only peripherally a moral issue. If you’re going to editorialize about moral corruption, you should talk about morality, not just money.

  7. Sep 2020
    1. side kept hidden

      Combined with Miss Clack, Godfrey Ablewhite’s story now seems to be some kind of commentary on hypocrisy in the church..obviously his name also reeks of some kind of purity (able/white, the color of innocence), as does Miss Clack’s when hers is thought of as more of an annoying, explicit expression of her self-righteousness.

  8. Jun 2020
    1. The EARN IT act turns Section 230 protection into a hypocritical bargaining chip. At a high level, what the bill proposes is a system where companies have to earn Section 230 protection by following a set of designed-by-committee “best practices” that are extraordinarily unlikely to allow end-to-end encryption. Anyone who doesn’t comply with these recommendations will lose their Section 230 protection.
    1. If the EU is set to mandate encryption backdoors to enable law enforcement to pursue bad actors on social media, and at the same time intends to continue to pursue the platforms for alleged bad practices, then entrusting their diplomatic comms to those platforms, while forcing them to have the tools in place to break encryption as needed would seem a bad idea.
  9. May 2020
    1. "On the contrary, we take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights." The move comes as little surprise from an administration that frequently has lambasted the 47-member body for a gamut of perceived failures — particularly the dubious rights records of many of its member countries, as well as what Haley has repeatedly called the council's "chronic bias against Israel."
  10. Mar 2020
    1. installs as a dual-boot system similar to how users can use both macOS and Windows on a Mac via Bootcamp. Of course, while Bootcamp is an Apple-sanctioned feature, what Corellium is doing here is most definitely not.
  11. Jan 2020
    1. A Trump spokesperson, speaking on condition of anonymity, says that the Trump campaign “will not speculate on Mrs. Clinton’s health,” adding that “she obviously has some terrible disease.”

      Barry frequently attacks the hypocrisy of others, revealing negative sides to people some may favor and pushing the audience to acknowledge hypocrisy in their own lives and society as a whole.

  12. Jul 2018
  13. Oct 2017
    1. ‘Well,’ the man said, ‘if you don’t want to you don’t have to. I wouldn’t have you do it if you didn’t want to. But I know it’s perfectly simple.’ ‘And you really want to?’ ‘I think it’s the best thing to do. But I don’t want you to do it if you don’t really want to.’

      Here exists one of the core conflicts between the characters. The American, wishing for an abortion to happen, does not want to impose a will for aborting on to his female companion. He states over and over that:

      "if you don't want to you don't have to."

      This compounds the issue at hand and is placing undue force upon the girl; his lack of tacking responsibility in a sense passes of this pressure towards the girl. In essence, he is removing himself from the problem through such, so-called, sympathetic talk. Yet he remains pressuring through an immediate return to pointing out the simplicity of the operation and such.

      Hemingway presents to us an environment of pressure, experienced by the girl, and show us the confounding hypocrisy existing in the American.

  14. Sep 2017
    1. Education, in like manner engrafts a new man on the native stock, & improves what in his nature was vicious & perverse, into qualities of virtue and social worth; and it cannot be but that each generation succeeding to the knowledge acquired by all those who preceded it, adding to it their own acquisitions & discoveries, and handing the mass down for successive & constant accumulation, must advance the knowledge & well-being of mankind: not infinitely, as some have said, but indefinitely, and to a term which no one can fix or foresee. Indeed we need look back only half a century, to times which many now living remember well, and see the wonderful advances in the sciences & arts which have been made within that period.

      I found this particular quotation particularly interesting because of the amount of irony and hypocrisy that it is riddled with. It speaks of the importance of education to create "a new man", however we know that this new man is of only a light skin color and most likely a slave-owner, not to mention the exclusion of women. Moreover, in my engagement Making the Invisible Visible, a key focal point is that what is unwritten is often just as important as what's written. Here, in the mentioning of the fact that education is better for the "well-being of mankind", it is implied that solely educating the white male slave owners will be progressive to civilization because of newfound knowledge that will be entrusted with them. As such, in mentioning that education is meant to be passed down to successive generations, the unwritten irony is in the fact that increasingly only a smaller amount of the entire population will be educated because of the ratio to the enslaved people population to the non-enslaved people population. This quotation shows the naive yet justified mindset of the elite class in education administration and society as a whole in the early 19th century America.

      • Muhammad Amjad
  15. May 2017
    1. British man who lives with TWO girlfriends becomes a dad with BOTH women

      The hypocrisy! Polyamory is fine, but polygamy, that same thing set with laws and regulations, is discouraged

  16. Jul 2016
  17. Apr 2016
    1. reject

      I couldn't help but roll my eyes after reading this passage. The author here is suggesting women's inferiority by suggesting that women are some how less capable of handling war than men. Its ironic because the point of the article is that women are more than equal yet here the author totally contradicts the point by suggesting that they can't handle something that men can.

      Additionally, the writer is using scare tactics and slippery slope logical fallacies to make the reader believe that if women are given equal rights... they will be drafted and they will have to go to war.

      It is important to note the climate of this era. The Vietnam war had taken many lives and the US was still living under the "threat" of soviet communism. For this reason it is easy to see why this slimy tactic may have been used. War and the draft were on people's minds and playing into this fear was probably a highly effective way to try and preserve the status quo.

  18. Nov 2015
  19. Feb 2015
    1. Ironically, the same colleague who has criticized Calle 24's recommendations, recently introduced similar development controls on what he calls "monster houses" being built in his own neighborhood. Free marketeers often try and stop poor communities from having a voice in development, but are happy to exchange their 'supply and demand' hat for a nimby hat when it comes to protecting their own backyard.

      This is true and needs to be called out.

  20. Sep 2013
    1. Those states in which an occasional citizen is put to death without a trial we condemn as unfit to live in, yet are blind to the fact that we are in the same case when we do not hear with equal good will both sides of the contest.

      He cries hypocrisy here, a strong rhetorical device. Although I'm not sure whether this would make the jury rethink their impressions or make them more biased against him.

    2. he expected that if he won in the debate with me, whom he calls the teacher of other men, everyone would regard his power as irresistible.

      Isn't that what Isocrates is doing? Why else defend yourself in a mock trial other than to prove your superior rhetorical skill?

    3. I consider that in all the world there are none so depraved and so deserving of the severest punishment as those who have the audacity to charge others with the offenses of which they themselves are guilty

      hypocrisy comes from hipocrisis which means actor, speech, mimesis

    1. most ridiculous of all is that they distrust those from whom they are to get this money--they distrust, that is to say, the very men to whom they are about to deliver the science of just dealing--and they require that the fees advanced by their students be entrusted for safe keeping

      More (supposed) hypocrisy. Practice what you preach. Does Isocrates statement have merit? If my aim were to teach you how to deal justly (to be trustworthy), does it necessarily follow that I should trust you? I don't think so. If it is that I am to teach you to be just, it may very well be that you aren't just yet.

    2. although they say that they do not want money and speak contemptuously of wealth as filthy lucre, they hold their hands out for a trifling gain and promise to make their disciples all but immortal!

      Claim of hypocrisy against sophists

    3. that they are on the watch for contradictions in words(10) but are blind to inconsistencies in deeds

      places more importance on action than word

    1. Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study; but when he is more advanced in years, the thing becomes ridiculous, and I feel towards philosophers as I do towards those who lisp and imitate children

      Is he drawing a connection that pursuit and engagement over time in Philosophy is childish? I am pretty sure debating about it and "What makes rhetoric rhetoric etcetc" qualifies as engaging in Philosophy. I find a lot of hypocrisy in this statement should this be the case. If not, then just know that sour candy is delicious.