The Problem of Hypocrites
The Problem of Hypocrites
"Hypocrites! Every last, damned one! Why can't Republicans just live and let live?"
That article—that one article—that’s the truth. This I know, because I know, as does everyone else I know. We all know the same things. Therefore, these things must be true. It couldn't be that I sought out only that information I agreed with. It couldn't be a case of personal bias. Why? Because everyone I know, who knows me, agree, forming a circle of truth and self-reinforcing knowledge. That's how I know.
We used to call that "Birds of a feather, flocking together." But no more. Tribalism is in. Objectivity is out, if it was ever really in, to begin with. Objectivity requires that I set aside my opinion and listen to alternative points of view. More than anything, it requires that I learn about the subject at hand so I can be armed with something more compelling than another person's opinion.
"Why do those stupid religious people listen to preachers and rabbis and such? Can't they think, for themselves? Yeah. What a bunch of dummies!"
Then I turn on my favorite news show, pick up my favorite paper, head to my favorite internet site, and intently take in today's dogma. And, like Pavlov's dogma, I consume, then regurgitate the message, which was handed down from on high. Those talking points sure are tasty.
Morality is for suckers who want to regulate your life! More taxes. More regulation, over businesses, is OK, though, because businesses are greedy but never politicians.
Bathroom edicts about boys who think they're girls, showering with my 14-year-old daughter, now that's the kind of legislation that's needed! And if Congress won't do their job and pass said legislation, no problem, a presidential edict will do. Forget the damned Constitution, which was written by racist White men.
"Yep. That seems OK to me."
How about forcing religious institutions to transgress their beliefs in the name of diversity. Christian ones, mainly. You'll notice that all the lawsuits against Christian bakers and candlestick makers were the only lawsuits of their kind. Muslim bakers? No way! That would be bigotry. Orthodox Jews? Nope. Hindus? Nada.
Do I sense a theme here? Oh yeah. Christians are a powerful voting bloc, and they usually don't vote for far-left candidates. That's why the power of the Federal government must be brought bear. To take out my enemies.
How about a rightwing, anti-homosexual activist teaching gay kids that homosexuality is a sin, as was the case in the not-so-distant past, for both liberals and conservatives? That's diversity. But not acceptable diversity. Which is exactly why the federal government shouldn't be in the business of diversity, to begin with.
That, however, moves well beyond the one-dimensional arguments made by disgruntled children of all ages, who just want to drop the hammer on their perceived enemies. In the name of diversity, of course. Because there is never a shortage of hypocrites, regardless of their politics. That was true in the past. It still is. Meaning, opinions may change, but hypocrites remain. Me, included.
Claude Hopperin. Me, included.
"Hypocrites! Every last, damned one! Why can't Republicans just live and let live?"
That article—that one article—that’s the truth. This I know, because I know, as does everyone else I know. We all know the same things. Therefore, these things must be true. It couldn't be that I sought out only that information I agreed with. It couldn't be a case of personal bias. Why? Because everyone I know, who knows me, agree, forming a circle of truth and self-reinforcing knowledge. That's how I know.
We used to call that "Birds of a feather, flocking together." But no more. Tribalism is in. Objectivity is out, if it was ever really in, to begin with. Objectivity requires that I set aside my opinion and listen to alternative points of view. More than anything, it requires that I learn about the subject at hand so I can be armed with something more compelling than another person's opinion.
"Why do those stupid religious people listen to preachers and rabbis and such? Can't they think, for themselves? Yeah. What a bunch of dummies!"
Then I turn on my favorite news show, pick up my favorite paper, head to my favorite internet site, and intently take in today's dogma. And, like Pavlov's dogma, I consume, then regurgitate the message, which was handed down from on high. Those talking points sure are tasty.
Morality is for suckers who want to regulate your life! More taxes. More regulation, over businesses, is OK, though, because businesses are greedy but never politicians.
Bathroom edicts about boys who think they're girls, showering with my 14-year-old daughter, now that's the kind of legislation that's needed! And if Congress won't do their job and pass said legislation, no problem, a presidential edict will do. Forget the damned Constitution, which was written by racist White men.
"Yep. That seems OK to me."
How about forcing religious institutions to transgress their beliefs in the name of diversity. Christian ones, mainly. You'll notice that all the lawsuits against Christian bakers and candlestick makers were the only lawsuits of their kind. Muslim bakers? No way! That would be bigotry. Orthodox Jews? Nope. Hindus? Nada.
Do I sense a theme here? Oh yeah. Christians are a powerful voting bloc, and they usually don't vote for far-left candidates. That's why the power of the Federal government must be brought bear. To take out my enemies.
How about a rightwing, anti-homosexual activist teaching gay kids that homosexuality is a sin, as was the case in the not-so-distant past, for both liberals and conservatives? That's diversity. But not acceptable diversity. Which is exactly why the federal government shouldn't be in the business of diversity, to begin with.
That, however, moves well beyond the one-dimensional arguments made by disgruntled children of all ages, who just want to drop the hammer on their perceived enemies. In the name of diversity, of course. Because there is never a shortage of hypocrites, regardless of their politics. That was true in the past. It still is. Meaning, opinions may change, but hypocrites remain. Me, included.
Claude Hopperin. Me, included.