When you tell a lie, you’re just attacking objective reality. But when you make a derogatory remark, you’re attacking a group of people. We place a higher moral value on defending people then we do on defending facts.
That seems like a good description of how it is. What is lacking is the belief that being factual is, in the long run, better for people, too.
The reason is simple.
We all know that politicians in the U.S. lie. Every single one of them. The lies don’t matter.
What matters is if the lie happens to re-enforce your particular political agenda. If you were for the ACA in the U.S, well then when Obama said “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” it wasn’t really a lie. See, the ACA is good and it wasn’t really Obama’s fault and you are only saying it was a lie because you are a big republican meanie. Or, if you are republican, it was a lie of enormous proportion and Obama knew it all along because Obama is the anti-christ.
Same thing happens when republicans do it, the republican partisans play it off as no big deal while the democrats go ape shit.
And so the politicians get away with it because the VOTERS let the lies they like slide.
So it is our fault. We let them (them being the politicians) get away with it because ~90 percent of voters always pull the same level every election. ~45% vote D and ~%45 vote R no matter what. The ~%10 in the middle decide things unless there is something special about the election and one side turns out more than normal.
This breaks down somewhat if a PC line is crossed. The problem with this is, of course, that each side has its own set of PC guidelines.
I’ve posted on this board before about how we, the voters, need to hold our own politicians responsible for their lies. However, this gets no traction. Why? Because it is your side winning, regardless of who is actually representing your side, that matters. If voters actually started calling out their own side for all the B.S. that they spew, well, it would likely mean that the other side would win. And we can’t have that.
So the second best option is to justify away the lies from the people on your side. It is cognitive dissonance at its finest. “All politicians lie. X is a politician and is on my side. I want him to win because he says the right things, even though I know he lies. Therefore X doesn’t lie.”
So we end up spotting every lie the other side makes and try to make a gigantic deal out of it while ignoring, minimizing and down right lying about the lies told by ‘our’ side.
A bit crazy, but it won’t change until the voters (read US) decide that the truth matters.
Slee
Hence, “truthiness.”
[QUOTE=Stephen Colbert]
It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that’s not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything.
[/QUOTE]
I think this exemplifies the answer to your question: people are generally willing to give the benefit of the doubt to politicians on their own side (and to rail against the liars on the other side of the aisle).
Every generation thinks they’ve invented politics, but the US political arena was every bit as bitter and divisive back then.
In case no one else has pointing it out, the Constitution was amended specifically to allow freedom of speech, not for me wanting to call my neighbor a bitch or a bad parent, but because they wanted politicians to be allowed to lie about everything.