non-Dhamma, but useful

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/pete-davidson-made-joke-snl-about-catholic-church-now-officials-are-demanding-an-apology/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3ae54016187 excerpt: March 12 at 1:04 PM Not everyone was laughing about Pete Davidson’s joke on last weekend’s episode of “Saturday Night Live.” The comedian opened his appearance on the faux-news “Weekend Update” segment with a line that drew some titters and stunned “oooooohs” from the audience: “This guy is a monster and he should go to jail forever,” Davidson said, referring to R&B singer R. Kelly, who has been accused of sexually abusing young women. “But if you support the Catholic Church, isn’t that like the same thing as being an R. Kelly fan? I don’t really see the difference, except for one’s music is significantly better.” Definitely not amused was the Catholic Church’s Diocese of Brooklyn, which on Monday released a lengthy statement condemning the joke and seeki

(advice from a friend) The traditional persona of an accomplished and reliable informer is one who is restrained and almost stoic when it comes to passing off judgments, especially those overarching generalizations about a person rather than on the individual points, on justifiable or unjustifiable grounds. I'm not saying that any naming-name critique is bad. But there's a way to do it so that no personal spite is detected. More skillfully, the critique can come across as humorous, good natured, and savage at the same time. I'm far from knowing how to do this properly. But I'm comfortable with a certain academic approach to critiquing. Some scholars are very good at it in that they can do this without being pedantic and without sounding too journalistic. Their normative, prescriptive judgments come across clearly, and what is right and wrong are clearly demarcated. But this is all done without giving people the impression that they're denigrating any one, especial

Munger has talked about incentive bias related to two clients his father (an attorney) had:     Grant McFayden — McFayden owned a Ford dealership and was a brilliant man of enormous charm and integrity and who made excellent decisions.     Mr X — Mr. X (Munger leaves out his name) was a blowhard, overreaching, pompous, difficult man. Charlie, when he was 14, asked his dad why he did so much work for Mr. X, the blowhard, instead of doing more work for wonderful men like McFayden. Charlies says his father told him:     “Grant McFayden treats his employees right, his customers right, and his problems right. If he gets involved with a psychotic, he quickly walks over to where the psychotic is and works out an exit as fast as he can. Therefore, Grant McFayden doesn’t have enough remunerative law business to keep you in Coca-Cola. But Mr. X is a walking minefield of wonderful legal business.” Translation: lawyers have a much stronger financial incentive to represent clients who ge