Hypocrisy Watch category archive
Jerry Falwell, Jr., accused the Lincoln Project of being involved in publicizing the scandal which led to his ouster from Liberty University.
The Lincoln Project’s response is delightful.
The Lincoln Project didn’t make Mr. Falwell sit in the corner. The Lincoln Project didn’t make Mr. Falwell unbutton his pants on a super yacht and post a picture on social media. The Lincoln Project didn’t make Mr. Falwell stand with Donald Trump, though that now makes sense; they are kindred spirits. The Lincoln Project has had nothing to do with the public finally learning about the true character of the Falwell family.
Facebook doesn’t want anyone to find the answer.
Many years ago, in another incarnation, I was a management trainer in the corporate training department of a national corporation (one of the benefits was that I got to travel all over the country, mostly by rail; there is no better way to see the country than through the windows of a passenger train).
One of the classes that we taught was “Interpersonal Communications Skills” (among ourselves, we referred to it as “How To Talk Good,” but, really, it was much more about how to listen good). The title of this post is one of the catch phrases we used to use to drive a point home to the trainees.
Because it’s true.
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.