There are three assertions that I made. Which one or combination do you think is not correct?
[ol]
[li]The OP explicitly mentioned hypocrisy[/li][li]That hypocrisy had to do with Sessions himself[/li][li]That hypocrisy had nothing to do with hypocrisy of the right vs. hypocrisy of the left.[/li][/ol]
Looking above, the first mention of “hypocrit”(sp) is referring specifically to Sessions. That is #1 and #2. In that mention, there is no left/right comparison, or the left/right in general. That is #3.
You may be thinking that the parenthetical in the OP in question was the opening to discuss hypocrisy of all stripes from all comers. If that’s your interpretation then I could see why you would think so. I don’t think this is a reasonable interpretation of the OP. I view it more as a throw-away type line by way of background, not necessary for the point that is being made or the one that is relevant to the topic at hand.
No, I’m thinking the parenthetical in the OP was the basis for the two sentences which preceded it. The OP offered no other reason for thinking that Sessions might be a hypocrite other than the general idea that states rights people in general were hypocrites.
So it makes no difference what the OP was explicitly inviting anyone to discuss. It was the entire premise of his specific suggestion about Sessions.
Ok - well I’m going to have to disagree with your interpretation. A suspicion that Session’s disfavor of MJ would overwhelm his support of state’s rights is sufficient to guess that Sessions my have a hypocritical view of state’s rights. Striking the parenthetical entirely doesn’t change the meaning of the paragraph, IMO. That it is after the initial ideas in the paragraph and a parenthetical in the first place are also a factors in my interpretation.
A suspicion that Session’s disfavor of MJ would overwhelm his support of state’s rights is itself a guess that Sessions may have a hypocritical view of state’s rights. There’s nothing inherent about disfavor of MJ which makes a person hypocritical, such that it could be the basis for such a judgment.
“States’ rights” is not the same thing as “the political right”. Nowhere in the OP is the political right mentioned (or the political left, for that matter).
Honestly, Bricker, the answer is ‘both’ depending on the issue being argued. Whether it’s abortion, marijuana, same sex marriage, gerrymandering, whatever the idea of the supremacy of states rights is entirely dependent on which side feels an advantage.
Both sides are neither states nor federal rights intensive. Instead, they’re on the side that will achieve their political goals. This is true even going back to the root of it all during and before the Civil War. The south - what became the CSA - was all for federal, top-down authority so long as it protected slavery and the economic system that was the basis of southern power. The minute that eroded suddenly “state’s rights” became a battle cry.
And thus, I presume, I just proved that hypocrisy is no recent invention. Go me, being Captain Obvious.
I actually think charges of hypocrisy are often revealing of less than firmly held principles in argument. By example, we can learn true or stronger motivators so often I find the counter examples informative.
That could be true in the case of Sessions as well, and I think in that context it’s a worthwhile discussion. I just didn’t see how the left/right comparison was on point in this case.
Nor I, Bone. But I do think it’s indicative of our polarized system that such accusations are de rigeur at this point. I think we could all wish such charges didn’t get leveled here as often as they do.
As I said, it gets leveled by both sides. But not, really, by those close to power except for specific, partisan purposes. At that level, it’s just used as a distraction and a bit of handwaving.
The problem is that many on the left-wing side of this board completely disregard their own hypocrisy when brought up. I have seen many responses to accusations of LW hypocrisy as
You caught a liberal hypocrisy. Oh well. :rolleyes:
Far from being tu quoque arguments, the hypocritical nature of the LW directly undermine their argument. As an example:
Trump shouldn’t be president because he supported the war.
So did Clinton
You caught a liberal hypocrisy. Oh well. :rolleyes:
I was just looking up an old post where a liberal got caught contradicting themselves regarding whether or not the primary should be undermined. IIRC it was Yes if it keeps Trump out and No if it keeps Bernie out. When caught out they just blew it off. But looking that one up I found this one. The argument was that Republicans run up the deficit in good times and bad and
When I brought up that BOTH Republicans and Democrats do it it was ignored.
So the bottom line is this: on this board the liberal side loves to point out where the Right are hypocrites as if it makes them the worst monsters on the planet but they themselves either ignore or rationalize their own. So how about this, if you find it exhausting and foolish to point out hypocrisy then why doesn’t YOUR side stop doing it?
I’m having a bit of trouble parsing your post. You seem to argue that people on the political Left (hereafter “LW”) are themselves hypocrites. You offer examples of LW hypocrisy to support that assertion. Then you close by suggesting that if the LW doesn’t want their hypocrisy pointed out, they should stop being hypocritical.
Can I hijack this thread for a second. There was a thread about what Trump could be impeached on. A few posters got into the whole Clinton impeached for a blowjob/No it was perjury and the mod came down on it. I tried to have a discussion on just the perjury part mentioning Walter Nixon and (not by name) Bill Clinton. I was told to knock it off and when asked can we discuss perjury the mod (spoiler: JC) said
Thing is the OP in its entirety is
So let’s sort this out. The mod is saying stick to the OP which specifically mentions lawsuits but we cannot discuss perjury as an impeachable offense. Jonathan Chance mentions the OPs “other reasons” but the OP just said “reality-base issues” and according to JC I cannot say “Trump can be impeached if he commits perjury. The Senate has convicted once and acquitted once.”
What does this have to do with this thread? I read the OP that was the basis for this thread and the poster’s entire second paragraph is a rant about the hypocrisy of state’s rights advocates but when that is addressed JC calls it a hijack and to address the issues in the OP. But like the perjury/impeachment thread that is precisely what you are telling us not to do. For good or for bad, this message board has a history of threads growing organically and it seems like JC is narrowing it into the discussion HE WANTS not the discussion the posters want. Now if the discussion is completely off topic then yes it is a hijack but if the OP talks about political hypocrisy or impeachment and that is the direction the discussion takes then how is it a hijack?
If we’re just talking about perceptions, part of the reason for this is that ‘tu quoque’ and ‘liberal hypocrisy’ are often the first resort of our right-wing posters around here. They seem to believe the substance of the argument is entirely decided if they can tease out some minor thread of supposed hypocrisy.
There’s nothing wrong per se with pointing out when a poster or politician seems to hold contradictory positions. It gets annoying when someone dodges the substance of an issue by redirecting attention to the sincerity of the participants. It gets even more annoying when this involves someone constructing an elaborate rhetorical trap to prop up the crutch. And it gets supremely annoying when people resort to “You had a different attitude when President X did the Thing” because it almost invariably involves a mischaracterization of the different attitude, of President X, and of the Thing.
Almost. I’ll try to clarify. There is hypocrisy on both sides and on this board the RW hypocrisy often forms a major part of someone’s argument. Yet when LW hypocrisy is pointed out in a way that undermines a person’s argument it is blown off or ignored (and to be very meta, that is very hypocritical).
To be honest, I wasn’t even going to bring it up in this thread but when LHOD characterizes pointing out LW hypocrisy as exhausting and foolish then he needs to be called out on it? Does he mean that LW hypocrisy doesn’t happen? Does he mean that ONLY the RW side of the board should stop pulling up examples of hypocrisy? Does he mean that using hypocrisy is a silly argument? (hence my point that your side should stop it as well)
But I certainly didn’t mean it in as general terms as you imply that all LWers are hypocrites. Merely that if the LW are going to call out the RW for hypocrisy then they need to at least acknowledge it when their side does it. I see a lot of the former and very little of the latter.
That’s not at all the problem. The problem is that certain members of this board think that a poster’s hypocrisy–real or, more often, imagined–is an argument against their position, and are so convinced of this that they make terrible, lazy accusations of hypocrisy in lieu of attacking positions themselves. If you’re finding your accusations of hypocrisy are meeting with eye-rolls (and in this part at least you’re correct, they are), it’s because they’re not helpful in addressing the merits of an argument.
I get that you think it’s a problem that people find these accusations lame and blow them off. The solution, I think, is to stop making lame accusations and instead address the merits of an argument.
If you really feel the need to call people hypocrites, go to the pit.
What I am specifically referring to are exchanges like this:
(LW poster) This Republican mayor should be thrown out of office because he did X.
(RW poster) Didn’t you last month say that the Republican city council should stop playing politics and leave the Democratic mayor alone after he did X?
(LW poster) Calling out liberal hypocrisy? :rolleyes:
The specific examples I can think of was a Democrat questioning why I’m a Republican when the Republicans use deficit-spending during good economic times. It is fair to point out that Democrats do it too (implying the question so why are you a Democrat?)
The other one was one I am trying to find was basically that the Republican party should ignore the will of the voters and get rid of Trump but later on they said that the will of the voters should be absolute (IIRC it was Clinton vs. Sanders). Why is it wrong to discredit their argument when it is inconsistent?
As for the tu quoque/ad hominem argument yeah both sides do it. In the thread that prompted this thread the OP is a perfect case of that. The question then is does the LW side of the board feel it is acceptable to use that argument against the RW but is unacceptable when the RW side does it to them?
Man, LW poster is a stinky old poopyhead hypocrite, I completely agree, and he probably kicks puppies to boot.
How on earth does the RW poster’s contribution illuminate the subject of whether the mayor should be thrown out of office?
It doesn’t. It reminds us that LW poster is a terrible little maggot of a human being, but unless the thread is in the pit, that’s neither here nor there. If you have an opinion on whether the mayor should be kicked out, express that opinion. You may even consider starting a thread on whether the Democratic mayor should be kicked out–or if you really really want to pursue the question of whether X is sufficient reason for removing a mayor from office, start a thread with both cases in it.
But if your only intent is to remind us that LW poster puts ketchup on his hot dogs and wears white after Labor Day and talks on his phone during movies, your post belongs in the pit.
As official spokesperson for the LW side of the board (I know you think there was a vote, but there wasn’t: I was chosen by consensus, with all the LW posters twinkling their fingers to signal consent), no, it’s unacceptable in either case. I hope that clarifies the matter.
