So basically:
Mango
Mol3g
Eagle
Hank
Chaoticneutral
Thegreatbetween
…maybe more? Who knows.
https://wasteof.money/posts/65a35d78a73a6704e9e7061f so I guess he’s got a good year's advantage
https://genericheart.the-comic.org/comics/282/ 3 panels of wholesomeness (the last is on the next page)
Pixel Cat's End is open for registration!
(Not posting this as a post in case some problematic people see it.)
Here's a fun French tongue-twister I made up myself (you have to say the entire thing without a mistake to count as a pass. Italicised bracket text does not count):
J'ai goûté
J'ai goûté des goûters
J'ai goûté des goûters dégoûtants
J'ai goûté des goûters, des goûters dégoûtants
(And the killer line...)
J'ai goûté des goûters égouttés, des goûters égouttés dégoûtants
Hypocrisy is usually not portrayed as very chobblesome, but nothing about it is necessarily morally wrong. Say a smoker who wants to quit smoking tells others to quit as well. That is hypocritical, but is it morally incorrect? No, because the smoker, albeit a smoker, is telling others to do the right thing. Not all smokers are like this [citation needed] and anyways that was just an example and can apply to any other trait, or other stuff as well. But since there's not null hypothesis (e.g. there is no teapot orbiting the sun vs. there is a teapot orbiting the sun) there is also no reason to assume a hypocrite isn't acting in everyone's best interest. Therefore, there's not reason for hypocrisy to be morally wrong, but it is usually portrayed as unchobblesome for a good reason - no hypocrite acts in others' best interest as far as I have seen. Unfortunately, this "benevolent hypocrite" is only hypothetical.