The OP took a side swipe at the GOP with his guess that Jeff Sessions was a hypocrite on states rights and the example of Congressional opposition to physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana, which of course almost completely from the same folks that were stalwart defenders of states’ rights in other circumstances. And don’t get me wrong: that is, indeed, an example of hypocrisy.
But it’s not limited to the Republicans. And singling out one side creates an impression that the criticism is intended only for one side. If a office manager calls together his four member team and says, “Angie, Bob, and Dawn, I just want to point out how honest, dependable, and hardworking you three are. You’re a credit to this office,” then Carla justifiably feels slighted, even if the office manager piously points out that she said not one negative word about Carla.
I take from your commentary above that you would prefer that such slight digs go unanswered. But why does the OP get to toss in a side dig and then claim that discussion of it is a hijack? If he truly wanted to discuss the merits of Wickard against the spectre of federal regulation of medical marijuana, he did not need to raise the hypocrisy issue at all – merely ask what arguments and chances such a course from the new administration might offer at the Supreme Court in light of Wickard’s precedent.
Your preferred course is to let the aggressor have the first punch and then forbid any counter. That seems unbalanced to me.
A certain amount of such is always going to occur, both in OP and in downstream comments. Well and good.
The issue that occurred, here, unfortunately, is that the subject brought up by the OP has been completely subsumed by the hijack. You, yourself here said it was a ‘slight dig’. Your posts took that slight dig and made it the focus of the thread, making it impossible for the intended discussion to take place.
I am not accusing you of this, but it’s possible such posts and hijacks can create the impression in those reading the thread that those who create such sidebar issues are attempting to redirect the thread from a subject that is weaker for their side onto one with a much firmer and higher probability of their side winning. Again, I’m not saying anything like this is intentional, but it does create the possible perception of such. This disrupts discussion and can make debate difficult to achieve. Given that’s the point of Great Debates - and to a lesser extent Elections - I’d prefer not to see that happen.
I disagree with this, both the point you are making and the example you are using to make it. A discussion of a politicians’ actions in the context of political debate is not the same as an office where the participants are much more significantly limited.
One can point out the actions of a politician without going into a treatise on the history of all other politicians. When you say X, that does not mean the exclusion of all else not X. It simply means the discussion is about X. It’s reasonable to talk about Sessions in the context of the Commerce Clause, medical MJ, and Wickard without discussion about previous Democrat’s positions on state’s rights. Not everything need be about hypocrisy and a comparison of past actions - discussion about a particular topic can stand on its own and there isn’t necessarily hypocrisy to focus on a particular aspect of an issue.
That being said, there is merit in discussing hypocrisy or the lack thereof and I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule to say when that is.
But you’ll notice that it could have ended with point, counterpoint – that is, my response was itself only partly my rebuttal of the “it’s only the GOP that are hypocrites,” meme. I also addressed the meat of the OP’s speculation.
Several people then attacked my rebuttal. To my way of thinking, this was the point at which posters should not continue. The OP cannot ask to be shielded from his (admittedly minor) dig from my also-minor response.
I am not accusing you of this, but it’s possible such posts and hijacks can create the impression in those reading the thread that those who create such sidebar issues are attempting to redirect the thread from a subject that is weaker for their side onto one with a much firmer and higher probability of their side winning. Again, I’m not saying anything like this is intentional, but it does create the possible perception of such. This disrupts discussion and can make debate difficult to achieve. Given that’s the point of Great Debates - and to a lesser extent Elections - I’d prefer not to see that happen.
[/QUOTE]
Then the discussion included talk about hypocrisy, since the OP explicitly mentioned hypocrisy.
Right?
See, this is the problem. You cannot let the OP get in a comment about hypocrisy and then declare the issue of hypocrisy off limits without self-evident consistency problems.
You are right that the OP explicitly mentioned hypocrisy, but that had to do with Sessions himself. It had nothing to do with hypocrisy of the right vs. hypocrisy of the left. If I said, “I think Sessions is going to turn out to be a hypocrite because his disapproval of MJ will overtake his approval of state’s rights.” then that is a discussion about Sessions’ positions. A response that says “Democrats have been hypocrites too” is not on point at all, IMO.
Obviously, we can. Without conceding that I view the situation vis-a-vis hypocrisy in the OP in question, I want to remind people that the goal in GD and Elections is debate and discussion. Disallowing a hijack, regardless, is designed to promote the main goals of the forum.
Hijacks, which the hypocrisy thing was (and is an event that happens all too often), are the very essence of non-debate. They - intentionally or otherwise - distract from the core mission of the thread.
In this case, the discussion was Jeff Sessions and his potential impact on marijuana laws. By focusing on what was, by your own admission, a small item in the OP, you twisted the course of the thread off its true nature. That’s damaging to debate and doesn’t need to be tolerated.
In our hyper-polarized and partisan political environ - in the larger world as well as the SDMB - we all too often see arguments devolve to:
I think person X is bad
The other side does it too
This, again, begs the question of the original statement. Was person X bad? Why or why not? We’ll never know nor be able to discuss it. It’s as if people are spoiling for a fight rather than a debate and discussion. It’s too bad, but it’s something I’d like to hope we can all grow beyond.
I find the incessant efforts by Bricker and some others to show that liberal posters are hypocritical to be exhausting and foolish. If it’s super-important to you to call us hypocritical, set up separate threads, preferably in the pit, for doing so. But these charges are constantly used to hijack other threads, often in exchanges that go something like this:
Liberal: So now Donald Trump has kicked a puppy. Surely we can all agree that that’s terrible.
Conservative: If Bill Clinton kicked a puppy, you’d declare puppy-kicking a national sport!
Liberal: No I wouldn’t! Why one earth would you say that?
Conservative: Remember when Bill Clinton ate a hot dog? You were fine with that, weren’t you? Didn’t start a thread or anything.
Liberal: Eating a hot dog is not the same thing as kicking a puppy!
Conservative: Once again, we see that it’s okay if a Democrat does it.
There’s no discussion of the original issue at all, only a series of sidelong swipes at the liberal for being such a terrible hypocrite.
It’s absolute foolishness and should not continue.
Do you honestly think that sort of behavior is more common on this MB coming from the right than from the left? Honestly? Do you find the “incessant efforts by posters on the left to show that conservative posters are hypocritical to be exhausting and foolish”?
Here’s the thing. Point out “conservative hypocrisy” on this MB and you will be applauded. Point out “liberal hypocrisy” and you’ll be chided and laughed at.
None of that makes it OK in any particular instance, however. In both cases it disrupts discussion and I’d hope it gets reported. It may not lead to warnings or such but it can lead to ‘stop the hijack’ notes if the moderator reviewing it thinks it’s necessary.
It’s not that ‘they do it, too’ it’s that it’s unworthy of both sides to do it here. Just because you see people in Washington DC do it doesn’t mean it should happen here. I’d like to think we have higher standards.
Agreed. I was not addressing the relative merit of taking that stand, just expressing shock at the idea that somehow conservatives are spoiling this MB by incessantly pointing out liberal hypocrisy.
You may be right. I certainly see conservatives alleging that liberal posters here are hypocritical far more than I see liberal posters alleging that conservative posters here are hypocritical, and I think I see it more often even adjusting for relative numbers. It’s possible that it’s confirmation bias, but I don’t think so.
It’s also not at all relevant to my point. If a liberal is doing it to a conservative, it’s equally obnoxious behavior.
Pointing out that pointing out conservative hypocrisy gets applause on this message board will earn you mild approbation. But point out that pointing out that pointing out conservative hypocrisy gets applause on this message board will earn you mild approbation? That will earn you harsh atrabiliousness.
Boy, I don’t think gathering these numbers is an achievable goal but I think you’re wrong. Anytime - and there more be hundreds - in which someone points out the simple ‘It’s OK if a Republican does it’ is an accusation of hypocrisy. That phrase - and its variants - is seemingly ubiquitous.
I do concur that it’s a dick move by people on both sides and I’d prefer not to see it occur.
You may be right. I’m sure I notice these attacks more when they’re made against me. But I do think there’s a difference between “It’s OK if a Republican does it” and “You would be singing a different tune if a Republican said that”–the latter is more of a personal charge of hypocrisy.
The larger point–that it’s a dick move and shouldn’t happen–we agree on.
The OP’s suggestion that Sessions is a hypocrite was entirely based on the notion that state’s rights advocates in general are hypocrites.
Of course. Because there’s a huge huge difference between an accusation that a specific person would do something in some theoretical situation and an accusation that holders of a certain ideology, in aggregate, actually do treat the same issues and concepts differently depending on how it impacts their preferred cause.