# Left-wing hypocrisy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871 "2012-08-27T23:16:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/81 "2012-08-29T14:08:57Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > People who would never dream of using a pejorative against a defined group of foreigners or minorities have no problem calling their fellow countrymen ‘crackers’, ‘rednecks’, ‘tea baggers’, ‘yokels’, you name it. Yeah, but all four of those _are the same group!_ ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/82 "2012-08-29T14:13:25Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > How about NOW supporting Bill Clinton back when he was being accused of sexual harassment? I vaguely recall them coming up with an excuse about how a man gets one pass at a woman because until then he doesn’t know if it’s unwanted or not. I don’t recall exactly what NOW said at the time, but I can picture them standing by a politician who they recognize as serving their goals (or, at least better than any likely politician in his place), even if he has personal failings. If, for example, Clinton sexually harasses three or four women, but promotes and signs legislation that improves economic opportunity for millions of women, it would pretty dumb of NOW to disregard the latter just because of the former. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/83 "2012-08-29T14:55:18Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > A liberal is a hypocrite if he doesn’t mingle daily with poor people? Are they hypocrites if they only have that token black friend too? Pretty much, yes. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/84 "2012-08-29T15:47:09Z")
How many is one supposed to have? Is there some sort of quota? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/85 "2012-08-29T15:50:44Z")
N+1. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/86 "2012-08-29T16:03:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > How many is one supposed to have? Is there some sort of quota? If someone is a leftist type that loves to talk about the injustices that different minority groups suffer and what everyone needs to do about it, it would be helpful if they actually socialized with those groups outside of photo ops. This is usually not the case. There are many examples but I will use Boston as an example. Boston is known as one of the most liberal/progressive cities in the U.S. yet it is also one of the most segregated. As a matter of fact, the most liberal areas (like Brookline, Newton, and the desirable parts of Cambridge) are among the most segregated areas of Boston. There are few minorities that live there except for affluent Asians (and plenty of Jews if you count them). You will see similar trends in cities like the greater Washington D.C. area, NYC, and San Francisco other liberal strongholds. I have a half-baked theory that the reason some leftist types are so obsessed with minority issues is that they hate the fact that poor minority groups exist at all and just really want someone to make them go away or at least keep their plight out of sight. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/87 "2012-08-29T16:11:34Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > N+1. The N-number, if you will. ---
**Author:** ![phxjcc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8491ac/32.png) [@phxjcc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phxjcc)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/88 "2012-08-29T16:48:11Z")
I’ll bite. Obama Administration’s failure to recognize the Armenian Genocide of 1915. Go ahead apologists, I DARE you. Statement made in 2008: “The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy,” Obama wrote. “As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.” Well? …and since we are on hypocrisy…that’s OK, Israel refuses to use the “G” word also. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/89 "2012-08-29T17:04:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > How many is one supposed to have? Is there some sort of quota? Let’s use whatever formula you’re using for affirmative action. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/90 "2012-08-29T17:10:36Z")
> [@XT](#): > > It’s hypocritical because there are no facts backing up (b) Right, which is why it’s WRONG. But being wrong is different from being hypocritical. For instance, Republicans who claim to care about the poor but cut social funding. Are they hypocrites? Well, if they honestly believe that the best thing for the poor, in the long term, is to encourage job growth by cutting taxes and encouraging fiscal responsibility, then they are not acting hypocritically. And the fact that I might think there’s a ton of evidence that their approach won’t work still doesn’t make them hypocritical, it just makes them stubbornly unwilling to change an entrenched position… just like liberals with nuclear power. (It’s also worth pointing out, by the way, that in an SDMB thread a while ago about “what position that your side takes do you most disagree with”, nuclear power was far and away the most commonly cited leftist position… so at least on the SDMB it is not at all true that liberals oppose nuclear power.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/91 "2012-08-29T17:12:09Z")
> [@phxjcc](#): > > I’ll bite. > > Obama Administration’s failure to recognize the Armenian Genocide of 1915. > > Go ahead apologists, I DARE you. I’ll take, “who gives a shit?” for $500, Alex. He said: > [@](#): > > “We honor the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who were brutally massacred or marched to their deaths in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire,” Obama said in a written statement on Armenian Remembrance Day. So he didn’t use the word “genocide”. Big deal. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/92 "2012-08-29T17:52:28Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Please explain how that undermines protection of women and children in marriage. > > You had some good points but you really lost me with this one. Historically marriage has been about making a solid base for a family. That is why the marriage vows are till death, for richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc. because children always need an intact family if possible. The idea that two or three men are able to get “married” because they love each other just as much as a man and a woman do, undermines marriage because people fall in and out of love all the time. Thus a marriage definition based on love instead of family is inherently less stable. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/93 "2012-08-29T18:00:16Z")
Sounds like you’re a big proponent of anchor babies. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/94 "2012-08-29T18:00:50Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I’m sure that the populace would be even happier to line up in a place where they received a fair wage and safe/healthy working environment. The only way in which a safe non-exploitative factories are be uneconomical is when they can be replaced with unsafe exploitative factories elsewhere. This is as true as the fact that I would be happier if chocolate chip cookies made me lose weight. The choice these people face is between low wage factory work in a dangerous environment or no work and unimaginable poverty. Thus if you take away the low wage, dangerous factory work choice all that is left is the grinding poverty. This is called comparative advantage and wishing does not make it go away. ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/95 "2012-08-29T18:06:15Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > I think that is a pretty good idea. Because history has shown that when groups form, they tend to accumulate power and that power is often wielded against individuals and worse to my mind, eventually starts acting against the interests of the individuals comprising the group. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > How is that hypocrisy? Regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea or not, it seems like a perfectly consistent philosophical/ethical position to take. > > In any case, a lot of people in this thread seem to be conflating “left-wing” with “hippies”. For instance: “The left claims to oppose materialism”. Wha? We do? Is that in the Democratic Party platform somewhere? > There are lots and lots of things in both directions that people like to describe as hypocrisy, because hypocrisy is bad mmmkay, but which are in fact just disagreements of policy. For instance, I claim I care about education, and some Republican claims he cares about education, and I support increased teacher pay by raising taxes, and he supports school vouchers and lots of standardized testing… neither one of us is necessarily a hypocrite, even though we could both say “how can you CLAIM you care about education when you…”, etc. I have deliberately taken no position on whether it’s a good idea or not. But it is hypocritical because the sacrosant principal is interefered with at a point not the same at which it causes harm. You can also add to that, by the way, the marxist/socialist idea that a worker should enjoy the full fruits of his labour… unless he’s a company owner, or he earns enough to pay tax. Again, no value judgement on the merits. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/96 "2012-08-29T19:09:09Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] Right, which is why it’s WRONG. But being wrong is different from being hypocritical. [/QUOTE] Maybe we are using different definition of hypocritical/hypocrite. I’m using something along the line of ’ a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings’. So, in that context, someone who professes to want to cut CO2 emissions and protect the environment is actively preventing the one technology that could actually making a difference, while pushing for technologies that clearly can’t, today…and while feeling all virtuous and superior for this attitude. To me, that’s being a hypocrite, but I concede that MMV, if you want to go with something like ‘well, if you are ignorant, and your ignorance is what causes you to hold such a belief then you are simply wrong, but not a hypocrite’. > [@](#): > > (It’s also worth pointing out, by the way, that in an SDMB thread a while ago about “what position that your side takes do you most disagree with”, nuclear power was far and away the most commonly cited leftist position… so at least on the SDMB it is not at all true that liberals oppose nuclear power.) Certainly, though there are quite a few knee jerk anti-nuclear lefties on this board as well. But, as in many things (like, say the attitudes of a lot of this boards ‘conservatives’ wrt mainstream conservative/Republican thought), this board isn’t exactly representative of the attitudes shared by those outside of this board…even only taking into account US 'dopers and comparing them to liberal/conservative main stream thinking outside of this board. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/97 "2012-08-29T19:09:15Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Historically marriage has been about making a solid base for a family. That is why the marriage vows are till death, for richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc. because children always need an intact family if possible. The idea that two or three men are able to get “married” because they love each other just as much as a man and a woman do, undermines marriage because people fall in and out of love all the time. Thus a marriage definition based on love instead of family is inherently less stable. So you’ll agree then that heterosexual couples who cannot have children or do not want children have no business being married. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/98 "2012-08-29T19:11:32Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > So you’ll agree then that heterosexual couples who cannot have children or do not want children have no business being married. I would actually agree with that although the reason has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Marriage is for having kids only. If you just want a long-term love interest, you can do that just fine without getting married and are probably wise to avoid it. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/99 "2012-08-29T19:13:31Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I would actually agree with that although the reason has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Marriage is for having kids only. If you just want a long-term love interest, you can do that just fine without getting married and are probably wise to avoid it. Not getting into the whole marriage thingy except to say I totally disagree with this. Marriage is simply a social contract between two people and society. Children certainly factor in, but is ONLY about having kids? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871/100 "2012-08-29T20:09:38Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Maybe we are using different definition of hypocritical/hypocrite. I’m using something along the line of ’ a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings’. So, in that context, someone who professes to want to cut CO2 emissions and protect the environment is actively preventing the one technology that could actually making a difference, while pushing for technologies that clearly can’t, today…and while feeling all virtuous and superior for this attitude. To me, that’s being a hypocrite But most people don’t have super-ridiculous-absolute positions. If someone’s stated position is “cutting CO2 emissions is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN MY LIFE ABOVE ALL OTHER THINGS”, then you might argue it’s hypocritical for them not to support nuclear energy, but in that case they should also just go around murdering people because each person they murder is one fewer driver, etc. But even when people say something like “X is the most important thing to me”, we all recognize that what they really mean is “X is very important to me, more important than it is to most people, and more important than many similar issues… but of course not more important than LITERALLY EVERYTHING, that would just be silly”. So someone who says “cutting CO2 emissions is the most important thing” probably really means “the long-term health of the planet is very important to me, and a key sub-issue in that is cutting CO2 emissions, but there are other important sub-issues, and I am sufficiently concerned about nuclear meltdowns and nuclear waste that I do not support nuclear power overall despite the fact that it would probably help CO2 emissions”. Again, that’s not a position I think is wise, but it doesn’t strike me as at all hypocritical. As for whether they “feel all superior”, doesn’t everyone? I mean, some people are probably more obnoxious about it than others, but that’s basically just being a jerk, and people on all sides of all issues are varying degrees of jerks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-wing-hypocrisy/632871.md?page=6)