Not really. Most of it is trivially, monumentally unimportant and if it just went away, I think a lot of people would be staggered at how little difference it make to their lives- but they’d probably be a bit less wound up and stressed, which can only be a good thing.
A lot of people don’t seem to realize that hypocrisy often makes sense. It’s not fundamentally bad to tell other people to do things that you yourself will not do.
The president asks troops to fight in battle. Does that mean the president should fight in battle? No. He’s the president. It’s not his job to risk his life in armed combat. It’s the troop’s job.
Al Gore probably emits more CO2 than he’d like the average American to. Does that make him a bad person? No. He’s one of the most influential men in America. He is incredibly active. It makes sense that he’d use more resources than average, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
In fact, people who complain that public intellectuals who advocate a reduction in carbon emotions tend to put out a fair amount of carbon emissions themselves in the process of performing their work have too egalitarian a view of social movements. These writers/speakers are getting the word out about a serious problem, and in doing so they contribute to that problem in an unbelievably minute manner. There’s nothing wrong with that. People should listen to their messages and take action themselves. And if Al Gore (or Richard Heinberg or whoever…) continues to burn through precious resources in order to get the word out, there’s nothing wrong with that.
So saying that somebody doesn’t walk their talk shouldn’t even be that damning a charge. But some people are obsessed with this idea…at certain times, when it serves their ideological interests.
This is one of my pet peeves, along with goatee-condemnations (“Your alternate self in an alternate universe in which other things happened probably acted poorly, therefore you are a hypocrite!”).
If you think something should be condemned, fucking condemn it already. If someone disagrees with your condemnation, and you believe it is inconsistent of them because they have condemned relevantly similar things before, ask them to point out the differences between the two.
But claiming someone is a hypocrite for not condemning something, when they’ve condemned similar things before, is incredibly weak. What it really says is, “I’m a moron and a tool who can’t be arsed to come up with a serious argument!”
I almost started this thread myself, and in fact wrote an entire OP about it, but decided it would fall on deaf ears and I couldn’t find a way to do it without pissing people off. Though I would expand ‘‘hypocrisy hunters’’ to include anyone making broad generalizations about entire groups of people based on their political orientation, up to and including accusing them (as a whole) of condoning violence, fascism, etc.
I’m unable to concur with this, based on the fact that ‘‘my views’’ are not being serviced at all and yet I somehow magically refrain from vomiting my hatred and vitriol all over anyone who happens to disagree with me. There is a vast difference between warranted, reasoned criticism and outright prejudice and fear-mongering. I am not singling out any particular political group for this – I see it on both sides, frequently on this very board, and it is my firm belief that this unfettered, childish, self-centered rage is exactly the thing that contributes to the escalating violence in this country. The longer this goes on the worse things are going to get. Social psychology 101: negative stereotypes engender mistrust, mistrust engenders fear, and when people are afraid, they become fucking violent.
I hereby hold anyone endorsing this kind of lazy intellectualism, fear-mongering and hate speech to be at least partly responsible for any violence that may result from this rapidly deteriorating political climate. If you chose to stir up the reactionary bullshit then don’t be surprised when it hits the political fan. Whether it’s another guy lynched, or a riot in Philadelphia, or the formation of some new domestic terrorist organization, you must know that through your choice of self-expression you contributed to the society that created such extremist thinking.
This I fully agree with.
May I conclude with my opinion that hypocrisy is human nature and pointing it out is an inherently hypocritical act. I’m not saying it’s not a functional act under certain circumstances, but let’s not get too carried away with the self-righteousness. The world is full of people who say one thing and do another.
I was going to follow up with an expansion/explication, but LHoD pretty much took the words out of my mouth. (In particular, in the second paragraph above).
In some cases, though, pointing out then “X also does that” isn’t an attempt to call out hypocrisy but naïvite, i.e. “the practice that you’re all horrified about has in fact been commonplace for generations”.
Amen to the OP. The latest exchange for me was, paraphrased, this:
OP: Christians, have you read a book by Famous Atheist?
ME: Only one, because I find his books too hostile.
Another Poster: The Bible is hostile! Do you read the Bible?
Classic example of “You condemn X; why don’t you condem Y??” even though no one was event talking about Y, nor was Y the subject of the thread.
Right here in your post is in error. People define a hypocrite as expecting someone to do something you wouldn’t do in their place.
What about when he’s a draft dodger so he didn’t go into battle when a previous president asked him to? If that president is too chicken shit to go in battle then he shouldn’t have ran for an office that’d put him in command of the armed forces. He’s a self serving piece of shit for even running for an office he was morally unqualified for.
Please clarify what you believe Al Gore’s position is on green house gases, because it’s my understanding is his position is we need to cut emissions down. Let’s look at emissions as money. There’s difference between investing money in something with a long term payout worth more than the initial investment, and throwing money away for the hell of it. If he invests green house gas use in projects he thinks over all will lower emissions then he isn’t a hypocrite at all. He’s actively working for what he believes in. However every time he spends carbon emissions unnecessarily, such as buying a SUV he’s saying it’s okay for you to as well, and he’s damaging his cause.
If a green technology advocate says I should take a bike when I can, but then takes cars in situations where bikes would have been viable, than why should I listen to him? He’s demonstrating by his actions that he believes his words have no value. If he believed in their value he’d follow them himself.
It’s very damning, it shows how empty they believe their words to be. Words are cheap, it’s actions that have value.
It’s people like you who are what’s wrong with this country today.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. 
Also I’d like to add I think don’t being a hypocrite on one issue is scarlet letter for universal condemnation on all issues, but defiantly a mark of condemnation for your position on that one issue, and a mark of condemnation for your character if you see your hypocrisy but don’t deal with it.
Lord knows I have enough personal inconsistencies to work out.
I prefer the predator-prey model.
Ok, Hypocrisy hunting is off limits. But what about when it jumps up from the side of the road in the dark and you don’t have time to react and you just smear it all across the road, and you are OK but your car is pretty much totaled. Is that still alright?
Or when it’s “coming right at you!”?
I dunno. I think it’s legitimate to identify hysterics who yell and stamp their feet under one set of circumstances and remain oblivious when their side engages in the identical behavior. It’s not about gotcha so much as a clinical, detached perusal of hyperemotionalism.
More generally, there are crazies on both the left and the right. But to the extent that, for example, sitting Congressmen and talk media stars enable the Birther conspiracy theorists while the nuttiness of the Bush-planned-911 wackos rightly fails to gain traction anywhere notable, it would be wrong not to take note.
Movement conservatives embraced racism in the 1950s, race-baiting in the 1970s, crank economics in the 1980s, paranoid theories about Clinton in the 1990s and lax regulation of subprime lending in the 2000s. However, their arguments regarding existing US policies should be addressed on their merits.
I agree one hundred thousand percent with the OP and Airman on this…
That being said I find it odd that it was posted in one of the comparatively few conservatives/right winger heaping stupid broad brush paint strokes on liberals/left winger threads instead of one the four hundred thousand “Republicans/conservatives/Christians/SUV drivers are evil.” threads.
Not trying to assign an agenda or anything like that… just an observation.
So, in a thread about the hollowness of the “why aren’t you outraged by X when you were outraged by Y” argument, you start by agreeing 100%, then complain that I was outraged by a right-wing post when I wasn’t outraged by a left-wing post??? :dubious:
Incidentally, I don’t think “Left/right-wingers are EVIL” is a problem (or at least not the problem I’m addressing). It’s (part of) what the Pit is for.
In the OP, if Sinajion just wanted to whinge about the moronic lefties smashing up Pittsburgh, then whatevs. At least there’s something to engage with. Likewise, I don’t see a problem with the post he was directly responding to, the “I am outraged by the death of a government worker and I think right-wing antigovernment rhetoric probably was a contributing factor” post.
But the “Sarah Palin attacks America from abroad” post is kinda lame, as is “Chuck Norris desecrates the flag”.
The trouble comes in when this goes far enough to disable all argument from principle.
If someone claims something like this -
Is it an absolute principle that a President who is a draft-dodger is thereby disqualified from running for President? If you argue Yes for one President but No for another, then the principle is not as stated.
It becomes no more than a rationalization.
If you want to argue on principle, the principle has to stay the same. If sexual harassment is a bad thing, then it is a bad thing for everyone. If the Vice-president presides over the Senate, then that is true no matter who says it’s true.
Regards,
Shodan
Honest to God question for this thread…
Is this quote an example of hypocricy hunting? Or is it a valid point?
Actually, you should try to assign an agenda to this. I chose that thread for a number of reasons:
-
I am identified as a conservative, therefore me condemning “my own”, as it were, carries more weight.
-
There is no reason why the minority should follow the trend set by the majority.
-
The position held by the OP was patently stupid, and making such a weak argument over something that has no foundation to begin with does not help conservatives in any way, shape or form.
-
Had I posted it anywhere else, like in one of the threads that you suggested, it would have been a waste of time.
-
It inspired this thread, which might not have happened in one of the others, where it would have been overlooked.
-
I hate “gotcha” games. Be a bigger person and let the Republicans/right-wingers/conservatives rise and fall on their own merits rather than engaging in childish behaviors.
So yeah, I did have an agenda, one that’s been brewing within me for a long time. That thread was simply the last straw for me. Therefore it was a particularly apt place to express my displeasure with what the SDMB specifically and the United States generally has become with regard to politics.
Let it go. If the Republicans do something stupid, let their critics condemn them for it. Man up, admit to yourself that they did wrong, and quit making excuses for them.
Of course, the Democrats among us could stand to do the same.