Irony in the "Alone at last", as she really hates it. She'd rather have Serena there, in all hypocrisy of her misery, she'd rather go through the ceremony -- in the end none is best, men are men, any sort of rape is uncomfortable for her. The men have not changed.

Hypocrisy where they are content in hell, especially because the place is called Jezebel's. It is a red-light district in a utopian society. It is a mirror of the old world, only more hidden.

Moira, who lives now in a brothel, is content being sexualised, preferring the sexual treatment and exploitation of the old world to an indifference and repression of sexuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avishai_Margalit

Both Offred and the handmaid are shown later to be adulterers, but one is punished for it (made a handmaid) and the man is let to be a commander -- What hypocrisy

Hypocrisy and injustice that he is the one who got rid of the old world and yet has nostalgia for it. Like North Korea.

Aliens in the plot "hide between saccades".

We can equate this to the way politicians actively treat their constituents when they play the hypocratic game of "do as I say not as I do".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel)

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Schrodinger%27s%20douchebag

He is describing Cassio as a monster or devil with a facade of human civilness, when in fact it is Iago who is the monster, but fully civil and detached from his emotions. He sees the devil in desire, lust and love, when in fact the one who ruins it all is the one who cannot accept the human subjective nature including feeling and emotion

Perhaps we should start with those states whose population pays less in Federal taxes than they receive in Federal dollars?

So sidestepping the sorts of things that result in dark blue text with red links on darkish green backgrounds?

Massebah for pagan worship: - Exodus 23:24 (https://hypothes.is/a/r3m5QmyDEe6SC8eLYcJE1Q) - Hosea 10:1 (https://hypothes.is/a/4PK2GGyDEe6wZg_r2YpVCA ) - 2 Kings 18:4 - 2 Kings 23:14

Massebah for worship of Yahweh: - Genesis 28:18 Jacob's pillow (https://hypothes.is/a/NF5p8Gx6Ee65Rg_J4tfaMQ)<br /> - Genesis 31:44-45 Jacob and Laban's covenant - Exodus 24:4 - Joshua 24:25-27

• for: climate change policy hypocrisy, fossil fuel lobby, EU climate policy, Hoekstra, Fox guarding the henhouse, Linked In post

• comment

  • What does it say about the EU's authenticity to deal with the global boiling crisis when they put a fox in charge of the henhouse?
  • this seems awfully similar to the choice for positioning an oil man to head COP28.
  • The fossil fuel lobby is EXTREMELY busy in the opaque back end of politics. We need more light to shine and bring the back end fossil fuel lobby activity out of the shadows to pre-empt future leadership betrayals.

• future research

  • uncover future fossil fuel lobby’s game plan and future attempts to coopt climate change policy leadership
  • needed in order to proactively preempt the next attempt at coopting climate leadership. It’s difficult when we are simply reacting

09:45 on philosophers, like Kierkegard, who talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk

People of the last days will be abound:

1) Selfish - Symptom: Increase in Divorce Rates

2) Enjoy pleasure > God - Sin has an addictive & deceptive nature, it gives pleasure. (think of porn)

3) Lukewarmness (have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof)

They will not be caught up with the Lord during the rapture.

Be ready for the rapture at all times because it will come like a thief in the night.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/03/illinois-to-become-first-state-to-prohibit-book-bans-00095151

From the Republican perspective, banning books would also seem to be a hypocritical means of restricting commerce and trade.

Context: Lindsey Graham had just proposed a bill for a nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

McConnell's position seems to be one that choice about abolition is an option, but one which is reserved for white men of power over others. This is painful because that choice is being left to people without any of the information and nuance about specific circumstances versus the pregnant women themselves potentially in consultation with their doctors who have broad specific training and experience in the topics and issues at hand. Why are these leaders attempting to make decisions based on possibilities rather than realities, particularly when they've not properly studied or are generally aware of any of the realities?

If this is McConnell's true position, then why not punt the decision and choices down to the people directly impacted? And isn't this a long running tenet of the Republican Party to allow greater individual freedoms? Isn't their broad philosophy: individual > state government > national government? (At least with respect to internal, domestic matters; in international matters the opposite relationships seem to dominate.)

tl;dr:<br /> Mitch McConnell believes in choice, just not in your choice.

Here's the actual audio from a similar NPR story:<br /> https://ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/me/2022/09/20220914_me_gop_sen_lindsey_graham_introduces_15-week_abortion_ban_in_the_senate.mp3#t=206

McConnell is also practicing the Republican party game of "do as I say and not as I do" on Graham directly. He's practicing this sort of hypocrisy because as leadership, he's desperately worried that this move will decimate the Republican Party in the midterm elections.

There's also another reading of McConnell's statement. Viewed as a statement from leadership, there's a form of omerta or silent threat being communicated here to the general Republican Party membership: you better fall in line on the party line here because otherwise we run the risk of losing power. He's saying he's leaving it up to them individually, but in reality, as the owner of the purse strings, he's not.

Thesis:<br /> The broadest distinction between American political parties right now seems to be that the Republican Party wants to practice fascistic forms of "power over" while the Democratic Party wants to practice more democratic forms of "power with".

Modeling annotation and note taking can allow students to see that their voices matter in conversation with the "greats" of knowledge. We can and should question authority. Even if one's internal voice questions as one reads, that might be enough, but modeling active reading and note taking can better underline and empower these modes of thought.

There are certainly currents within American culture that we can and should question authority.

Sadly some parts of conservative American culture are reverting back to paternalized power structures of "do as I say and not as I do" which leads to hypocrisy and erosion of society.

Education can be used as a means of overcoming this, though it requires preventing the conservative right from eroding this away from the inside by removing books and certain thought from the education process that prevents this. Extreme examples of this are Warren Jeff's control of religion, education, and social life within his Mormon sect.

Link to: - Lawrence Principe examples of the power establishment in Western classical education being questioned. Aristotle wasn't always right. The entire history of Western science is about questioning the status quo. (How can we center this practice not only in science, but within the humanities?)

My evolving definition of active reading now explicitly includes the ideas of annotating the text, having a direct written conversation with it, questioning it, and expanding upon it. I'm not sure I may have included some or all of these in it before. This is what "reading with a pen in hand" (or digital annotation tool) should entail. What other pieces am I missing here which might also be included?

Oh the ironies of this as he was talking about a small proportion of the population at the time, a large swath of which (namely enslaved persons with no power) had no arms to protect themselves against him.

His definition of "freemen" was painfully limiting for someone speaking about freedom in such lofty terms.

Could be interesting to look at this from the dual perspective of eisegesis vs. exegesis.

Some might see the 98,000 preventable medical error deaths reported by the Institute of Medicine in To Err is Human (1999) now and laugh at the farcical number of deaths due to coronavirus since 2020, a large proportion of which could have been prevented due to better communication and coordination?

What if a more pragmatic anthropological viewpoint could be given to the current fractured state of American politics? If anthropologists are taught not to make value judgements on the way other cultures have come to live their lives, but simply to appreciate and report on them accurately, then perhaps we should leave those on the far right who believe in top down, patriarchal rule to their devices?

What if we nudged (forced) them all to actually live by their own rules by enforcing them to the nth degree? Republican politicians can only get away with badmouthing abortion or homophobic viewpoints because their feet are not held to the fire when those issues impinge upon their own families or even themselves. They have the wealth and the power to flout the laws and not face the direct consequences personally. Would their tunes change if forced by their own top down patriarchal perspectives applying to them?

Fascinating that the Mi'kmaq would level such accusations of non-Christian principles to a Jesuit missionary.

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.

I love the phrasing of this.

Height of hypocrisy...

A solid definition of cancel culture.

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.

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.

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?

Jesus is a "hood ornament."

searing...

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?

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

Pennycook, Gordon. ‘How the COVID-19 Crisis Exposes Widespread Climate Change Hypocrisy’. CBC, 22 May 2020. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/opinion-climate-change-should-believe-dont-understand-1.5482416.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

hypocrisy

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.

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

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

Should low-income students have access to the same private schools that the author has?

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.

so are they selfish or not??

This is true and needs to be called out.

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.

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

hypocrisy comes from hipocrisis which means actor, speech, mimesis

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.

Claim of hypocrisy against sophists

places more importance on action than word

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.