Dubious

Hypocrisy has been defined as "the tribute that vice pays to virtue." The question of who first defined it as such is a good one. The first three results that Google gives me are Grover Norquist, John le Carré, and Peter Singer. Since GK Chesterton was familiar with the sentiment I think we can answer "no" for all three. Quotes frequently become disconnected and float freely in the cultural ether, but this post isn't about that.

The term "virtue signaling" is generally thought to be a similar thing to this meaning of hypocrisy. But I think it's more insidious than that, which is why it bothers me. If what vice is paying tribute to is actually virtue then there's an ideal that's being held up, even if falsely. But―and recent events have strengthened this belief for me―I think that in virtue signaling the things that people want to attach their names to aren't really virtues. They're just things that society is promoting at the moment, and might actually be evils.

Of course this isn't new either, but it's important to see it for what it is.

Hanging on the telephone

One thing you could have some fun with would be a compilation of hilariously bad spam robocalls. There are some doozies out there. 

One case in point: a couple of weeks ago I actually broke with custom and answered the phone without checking if the number was one I recognized. The "caller" turned out to be a droning voice on tape. Told me that my social security number had been matched to an incident of tax fraud and a warrant had been issued for my arrest. Kinda didn't help their credibility that they didn't know my name, or anything else about me really. 

Similarly I've been getting messages today on some ridiculous amount of money I seem to have laid out in Amazon purchases. Same issues as above, but with a couple of new wrinkles this time. They don't even say who they are. Like, is Amazon reaching out because of the insane amount I've spent on butterscotch or whatever? Pretty sure they're not trained to look a gift horse in the mouth. Which leaves my credit card company, but they're not identifying themselves as employees of such.

I know I should be grateful that they don't demonstrate any core competence. And truly, I am. That would make for a scary world.

Drama queening

The headline on this article is a little on the melodramatic side. Yes, there will be a few changes to the political map due to the Census-driven reapportionment. Sure to be some jockeying and gerrymandering as well. But most of these developments are unsurprising, just a crystallization of trends that have been happening out in the open for all to see.

California loses one and Oregon gains one, which would seem to suggest that a lot of people leaving California for financial reasons or whatever just drove a little north. That said, if the Beaver State doesn't pull out of its current funk I wouldn't expect them to hold onto that seat.

Here in Rhode Island we were bracing for a loss of a seat, which would have made us a single-representative state like Vermont and the Dakotas. Didn't wind up happening. My friends and I all reached the conclusion that Langevin would have been the one to bite the bullet if it had.

Their early stuff, before they went mainstream

Quantity can compromise quality.

The stronger a hold religion has on society, the cleverer atheists have to be. David Hume questioned the precepts of Christianity at a time where much of the West was still taken up by what were effectively theocracies. He'd be more accurately described as an agnostic or deist, but scandalous enough for his time. Friedrich Nietzsche, of course, was much bolder. "And now you upbraid me for teaching that there is no reward-giver, nor paymaster?" Agree with him or not, he was a genuine vanguard.

Subsequently in the West religion has lost both power and representation in the greater populace. You can believe what you want to believe, or not.

Which is why I never found the New Atheism movement of the turn of the millennium particularly compelling. It's no secret that a lot of believers―call them fundies, cultists, or what have you―are reactive and simply shut out other viewpoints, facts, etc. But by that point a lot of nonbelievers were making just making a lot of lazy half-arguments and exhibiting a similar closed-mindedness. They'd let too many people into the club.

It's difficult to place Richard Dawkins on this continuum. On the one hand his attitude toward the question of God and things not seen in general might best be characterized as dismissive. On the other hand he has a genuinely curious mind and provocative way with words. These very qualities appear to have gotten him into trouble with his onetime confederates.

In a way this is not too surprising. Much of the atheist movement was made up of urbanites eager to prove their superiority to the great exurban unwashed―red states and flyover country here in the States. Now a number of social attitudes fulfill the same purpose, and it's only natural for Brights to latch onto those as well. Now Dawkins can't even play devil's advocate on those without facing exile. New Atheism always carried the seeds of its own destruction.

Time capsule

Any kind of creative endeavor is an optimistic act on one level. You're acting, first of all, as if there will be people in the future to act as your audience. And also that they will have an interest in what you wound up saying, even though your time and theirs might be quite alien from each other.

In many ways it's gotten more difficult to nourish that kind of hope. Especially as culture has been overtaken by politics, and those politics have become stupider and more binary. Yet some people are still out there, making things. 

And there is a way. You can focus, even if your focus needs to be private.

Black and white and red all over

See what you make of this. There's a lot of repetition, obviously. In fact you could say it's all repetition. But there's also a great deal of care being taken. And the lone color, the rich red of the envelope (?) shifts around in an intriguing way. I think I'd describe this animation as meditative.

More hall monitors

 This story about reactions to the title character of Luther at the show's BBC home base came to my attention earlier this week. I've read elsewhere that Idris Elba, who strikes me as having a good head on his shoulders, was attracted to the role because it wasn't race-specific. So the standard of "authenticity" is just being imposed from without by the politically minded. As Ricky Nelson said, you can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself.

It reminded me of this Saturday Night Live sketch from a couple of years ago, featuring none other than Idris Elba.

Whatever you can imagine would be the reaction of the woke Twitter addicts the skit tweaks, it was that but much moreso. Accuse some people of being humorless and doctrinaire and you can count on their reaction being I resemble that remark.