I suppose that's the reason schadenfreude has gained currency in English, we have no equivalent, can't even think of a near equivalent phrase that requires fewer than five words.
In any case, I am thinking I may need to stop reading any political news for
A headline that greeted me in my inbox concerning a serious and seemingly very blatant ethics violation from a politician whose stances I share on many issues but whose position on one great matter I consider little short of diabolical.
I was glad...
Now, morally it is possible to feel relief that there is less chance of what one sees as a great evil befalling people, or that there is a greater chance of some great good coming to pass, but that wasn't what I felt.
I was glad.
This cannot be good.
Because I'm not sure if what I feel are principled attitudes -- does one side on an issue seem right and good to me because it logically follows from my take on other issues, is it consistent with fundamentals I've already embraced?
Or is it toeing the party line?
I mean that only figuratively, because I have no party, and therefore no party line, (full disclosure, I am nevertheless registered in one party.)
But you know what I mean, because I agreed with someone or group before, I'll agree with them on this matter, as well, EVEN IF IT CONTRADICTS THE PUTATIVE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE PREVIOUS POSITION WAS REACHED.
I see this much more often than I thought I would, I'm 100% for states rights (although I want the Feds to strike down any state's more liberal marijuana laws,) or from the other side, I'm 100% for states rights (although I want the Feds to strike down any state's more conservative marriage laws.)
People choose up sides the way they usually choose up sides, regardless of the merit of an individual argument.
One certainly sees this in the Church, even in cases where I would not have thought there was any "political" divide.
Seriously, don't you often hear something and think, Well yeah, who's gonna argue with THAT?
And the answer turn out to be, Lots of people.
I was shocked, -- really, genuinely shocked that when a well-known reporter engaged in ugly commentary about a member of the, a bias against whom he had consistently displayed, and was suspended from his news organization for this clear lack of charity, (and, perhaps more important in a media outlet, lack of objectivity,) virtually the entire commentariat at a similarly minded magazine from another country thought the little weasel had been unfairly dealt with.
Now you see my bias.