Not exact matches
The theological term for this is: you can see
reality as gracious — not
as hostile, not
as indifferent, but
as gracious.
The outrage it has prompted will be presented
as an over-reaction by liberals driven by a
hostile media that is determined to distort the
reality of the order.
As many people do when faced with the grim
reality of a
hostile Home Office campaign, she went underground, cancelled her phone and tried to get her papers in order so she could make a proper case for her right to remain.
So at least someone grasps the problem:
hostile media is bad, and
as long
as the principle of this hostility is» #NotMyPresident - because - I - don «t - like - him - because - he's - not - fitting - inside - my -
reality» benefits of being confrontational outweigh costs.
While moments, particularly the resolution to that seemingly throwaway subplot about the dead friend, can be moving despite their dissonance (a Farrelly hallmark), they're always cursory to the central duo, who are unrepentant in their squandering of years on foolish pranks, openly
hostile towards reflections of their age (e.g., Fraida), and insulated from harsh
reality by not only their wilful ignorance, but a perpetual fog of nostalgia
as well.
A more accurate model is: politics is a system that 1) selects against skills needed for rigorous thinking and for qualities such
as groupthink and confirmation bias, 2) incentivises a badly selected set of people to consider their career not the public interest, 3) drops them into dysfunctional institutions with no relevant training and poor tools, 4) centralises vast amounts of power in the hands of these people and institutions in ways we know are bound to cause huge errors, and 5) provides very weak (and often damaging) feedback so facing
reality is rare, learning is practically impossible, and system reform is seen
as a
hostile act by political parties and civil services worldwide.