# Jonathan C, a continuation of Wickard **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 9, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294 "2016-12-09T17:18:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/1 "2016-12-09T17:18:54Z")
Spake Jonathan C thusly: > [@Legal marijuana and Wickard vs Filburn](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-marijuana-and-wickard-vs-filburn/774232/28): > > I must agree that the intent of this thread was thoroughly hijacked by the discussing of liberal/conservative hypocrisy. Bricker pulled one part of the OP out and now there’s little discussion of what dtilque wished to discuss. > > I realize these things happen, but I want to go on record as stating that I would be extremely dismayed should such things continue to derail or hijack threads. While we don’t give an OP any special powers to control the direction of a thread - though they’ll appeal to moderators every now and again (dtilque has not, lest I create that impression) - we do like to see threads stay on topic. > > In this case, I’ll take no action (I reserve the right to do so in the future) other than to say the above and repeat: let a thread be about the thread. Redirecting it in the manner I’ve outlined above makes the appearance of an intentional hijack for purposes of winning a debate instead of discussing a topic. A contrary view: 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/2 "2016-12-09T17:32:05Z")
I disagree, of course. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/3 "2016-12-09T18:34:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/4 "2016-12-09T19:05:41Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I disagree, of course. > > 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. It’s true that the hijack was taking over. 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] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/5 "2016-12-09T19:08:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/6 "2016-12-09T19:16:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then the discussion included talk about hypocrisy, since the OP explicitly mentioned hypocrisy. > > Right? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/7 "2016-12-09T22:05:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. 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: 1. I think person X is bad 2. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/8 "2016-12-10T01:18:01Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/9 "2016-12-10T01:44:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/10 "2016-12-10T01:51:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/11 "2016-12-10T02:23:36Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/12 "2016-12-10T02:39:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. So you decided to point out the liberal hypocrisy… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/13 "2016-12-10T02:40:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/14 "2016-12-10T02:44:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. 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. Sounds hypocritical to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/15 "2016-12-10T03:51:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. OK. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > So you decided to point out the liberal hypocrisy… No. If I were to put it into modern parlance, I’d say it’s “liberal privilege” on this MB. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2016, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/16 "2016-12-11T15:01:09Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/17 "2016-12-11T15:55:14Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/18 "2016-12-12T14:49:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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. That’s not correct. The OP’s suggestion that Sessions is a hypocrite was entirely based on the notion that state’s rights advocates in general are hypocrites. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/19 "2016-12-12T16:03:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not correct. > > The OP’s suggestion that Sessions is a hypocrite was entirely based on the notion that state’s rights advocates in general are hypocrites. You realize that your rebuttal doesn’t actually rebut what **Bone** wrote, right? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294/20 "2016-12-12T16:18:19Z")
No, I don’t. And yes, it does. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-c-a-continuation-of-wickard/774294.md?page=2)