Hypocrisy Watch category archive
Writing at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Elijah Todd-Walden finds that the “few bad apples” notion regarding rogue cops is of little comfort. A snippet:
Time and time again, those “bad apples” have been granted impunity to continue to tarnish the name of the police and taint the trust of the community, especially with black and brown Americans. Derek Chauvin had 18 complaints filed against him before he killed George Floyd, only two of which were closed “with discipline.”
Perhaps the most apt comment I’ve heard about “the few bad apples on the police force” theory of police brutality came in a recent episode of The Bob Cesca Show (I can’t remember precisely which one).
Suppose, asked one of the participants, that, after a pilot flew an airliner into the side of a mountain, the airline announced that it was just one of a few bad apples among its crews?
David Kyle Johnson, writing at Psychology Today Blogs, pierces the smokescreen raised when someone tries to end an argument by saying, “I have a right to my opinion.” A snippet (emphasis added):
The idea that one has a right to their opinion, and should be liberated from opposition, is also implied when people end discussions with a phrase like “we’ll just have to agree to disagree,” or insist that the nature of reality is merely a matter of interpretation. (“I know what he said, but what I got out of it was…”) But do people really have a right to their opinion in such circumstances?
Simply put, the answer is no. Indeed, in almost all circumstances in which they are uttered, such assertions are false.
Note the qualifier in the last sentence above. Johnson is not saying that persons don’t have a right to their opinions in matters of opinion. Rather, he suggests that, when someone is reduced to actually uttering the words, “I have a right to my opinion” (or equivalent), he or she is justifying cleaving to an opinion shown to be demonstrably wrong, wrong, wrong.
Methinks he may be onto something.
Follow the link for the full article.
Reworded Monday morning, but the same thought.
The Kansas City Star reports that progress is being made towards an accommodation. Farron may be a bit overwrought in this recording, but I have witnessed enough incidents here and in other places I’ve lived in which the underlying motive was to make homeless persons just go away that I’m inclined to think he is on to something here.
Badtux notes the intellectual acrobatics. The gist:
Dana Goetsch explores the craven, lick-spittle world of the “No Apology Apology.”
The Baltimore Sun’s Tricia Bishop points out the sexual misconduct can be anywhere, as it knows no party, no industry, no social strata, no political or religious affiliation. She offers some advice for men befuddled as to what constitutes acceptable behavior. Here’s the gist:
Appropriate behavior seems a hard lesson for many men to learn, for reasons my female brain cannot fathom. As I’m in a helpful mood, let me break it down in very simple terms. Just as you shouldn’t say every little thing that pops into your head, you shouldn’t act on every little sexual urge that pops into your pants.
At Psychology Today Blogs, Arthur Dobrin explores the hollow hypocrisy of “thoughts and prayers.” A snippet”
The Hallmark card response waiting to be taken off the shelf is inadequate. It is action that is needed. When society realized that unregulated drinking wreaked havoc on highways, we instituted strictly laws around drinking and driving. Those whose lives have been devastated by natural disasters need to get relief in terms of aid that helps them rebuild their lives. When an illness becomes an epidemic, we need to not only stanch its spread but put in place measures that prevent a future outbreak.
If all we say is “sorry for your loss” when that loss isn’t addressed by action that prevents further deaths, then the expressions of sympathy can actually be harmful. Saying isn’t the same as doing. Saying the right words may make the speaker feel good but it only helps if there is some action attached to it.