• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Hypocrisy a non issue?

RBIII

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2015
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
125
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I won't go through the motions of citing hypocritical instances on both sides. My point is i always thought hypocrisy was cured when the perpetrator had to acknowledge it and adjust. It seems now though, that hypocrisy is a non issue, even when one is caught in it.

So my questions is in your opinion, does hypocrisy matter in this day and age, at least in politics?

For example, some of the rich are concerned with global warming while using private jets and consuming more than the average person. The left are for "social justice", until Asians start out performing them in SAT scores (Harvard), this has not been reconciled as far as i know.

The right are pro life, until the baby is born and then they don't care. I don't think that is necessarily hypocritical. Another example could be that the right says they care about the federal budget, but will blow it up for the military, again i don't think that is necessarily hypocritical because defense is necessary to survive.

In a nutshell, do you care about hypocrisy if you are a fan of the person in question otherwise? I thought being caught in hypocrisy required reflection and correction but it doesn't seem to be the case these days.
 
For example, some of the rich are concerned with global warming while using private jets and consuming more than the average person. The left are for "social justice", until Asians start out performing them in SAT scores (Harvard), this has not been reconciled as far as i know.
The right are pro life, until the baby is born and then they don't care. I don't think that is necessarily hypocritical. Another example could be that the right says they care about the federal budget, but will blow it up for the military, again i don't think that is necessarily hypocritical because defense is necessary to survive.

Apparently you think the left is hypocritical, and the right isn't really hypocritical. How very fair and balanced of you.

No, a rich person being for global reduction in emissions to fight global warming, also using a jet that is not energy efficient, is not hypocritical.
No, some on the the left being for social justice, has nothing to do with Asians in America at this time.

Like most things in the Trump age:

Average moderate/centrist, traditional public servants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trump styled lying/contradiction/hypocrisy

Sure everyone is a hypocrite in some ways, but generally, they get called out on a lot of real examples. Team Trump however, is a whole different ballpark of hypocrisy, and they certainly do NOT care to call out their party on it.
You can't even post about it without forgiving the two examples you used for the right....
n.
Equating mole-hills to mountains (false equivalency), stating lies as true...these are far more damaging than these ill conceived ideas of hypocrisy.
 
Apparently you think the left is hypocritical, and the right isn't really hypocritical. How very fair and balanced of you.

No, a rich person being for global reduction in emissions to fight global warming, also using a jet that is not energy efficient, is not hypocritical.
No, some on the the left being for social justice, has nothing to do with Asians in America at this time.

Like most things in the Trump age:

Average moderate/centrist, traditional public servants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trump styled lying/contradiction/hypocrisy

Sure everyone is a hypocrite in some ways, but generally, they get called out on a lot of real examples. Team Trump however, is a whole different ballpark of hypocrisy, and they certainly do NOT care to call out their party on it.
You can't even post about it without forgiving the two examples you used for the right....
n.
Equating mole-hills to mountains (false equivalency), stating lies as true...these are far more damaging than these ill conceived ideas of hypocrisy.

Well if you noticed, i gave two examples of the right, and one each of the left and the rich, thought that would balance out my intentions. I don't want to make this a right/left debate, because both sides are guilty.

I guess my point is, if hypocrisy is supposed to be a negative attribute, why does it seem like no one cares?

Another example, Hillary Clinton implied that black people are super predators and that they needed to be brought to heel in 1996, that's racist, but the left supports her full throttle till this day and calls Trump a racist. Bill Clinton put more black people in prison than any other president but somehow he is a hero of the left. How is this possible at the same time?

If i am missing any good examples on the right please inform me.
 
I won't go through the motions of citing hypocritical instances on both sides. My point is i always thought hypocrisy was cured when the perpetrator had to acknowledge it and adjust. It seems now though, that hypocrisy is a non issue, even when one is caught in it.

So my questions is in your opinion, does hypocrisy matter in this day and age, at least in politics?

For example, some of the rich are concerned with global warming while using private jets and consuming more than the average person. The left are for "social justice", until Asians start out performing them in SAT scores (Harvard), this has not been reconciled as far as i know.

The right are pro life, until the baby is born and then they don't care. I don't think that is necessarily hypocritical. Another example could be that the right says they care about the federal budget, but will blow it up for the military, again i don't think that is necessarily hypocritical because defense is necessary to survive.

In a nutshell, do you care about hypocrisy if you are a fan of the person in question otherwise? I thought being caught in hypocrisy required reflection and correction but it doesn't seem to be the case these days.

Whoa, Pardner! Would you please provide us with a citation for this one:

The left are for "social justice", until Asians start out performing them in SAT scores (Harvard), this has not been reconciled as far as i know.

But I do agree with you. Hypocrisy can be found on both sides. The left is just smoother in its execution. After all, we know what's good for you, friend!
 
I won't go through the motions of citing hypocritical instances on both sides. My point is i always thought hypocrisy was cured when the perpetrator had to acknowledge it and adjust. It seems now though, that hypocrisy is a non issue, even when one is caught in it.

So my questions is in your opinion, does hypocrisy matter in this day and age, at least in politics?

For example, some of the rich are concerned with global warming while using private jets and consuming more than the average person. The left are for "social justice", until Asians start out performing them in SAT scores (Harvard), this has not been reconciled as far as i know.

The right are pro life, until the baby is born and then they don't care. I don't think that is necessarily hypocritical. Another example could be that the right says they care about the federal budget, but will blow it up for the military, again i don't think that is necessarily hypocritical because defense is necessary to survive.

In a nutshell, do you care about hypocrisy if you are a fan of the person in question otherwise? I thought being caught in hypocrisy required reflection and correction but it doesn't seem to be the case these days.

Hypocrisy is probably my number one issue when voting for a person. Corruption follows that. I weigh their pros and cons. See if I can stomach their agenda (and on a national level their supporters), then I look at how often the person has flipped on their agenda and if it happens a lot, then I question why.
 
Hypocrisy is never considered to be an issue by a hypocrite.

If we are all hypocrites on some level as some would suggest, does that mean its a moot attribute that is neither bad nor good, just something that is?
 
Hypocrisy is probably my number one issue when voting for a person. Corruption follows that. I weigh their pros and cons. See if I can stomach their agenda (and on a national level their supporters), then I look at how often the person has flipped on their agenda and if it happens a lot, then I question why.

So if you agree with someones agenda, and they haven't flipped much, but their supporters are not the people you would normally associate with, will you abandon that person for that one factor?

In more blunt words, if people thought the person you supported was a racist, but you didn't think so, would you withdraw support for that person because other people believe so?

Also, if everyone is a hypocrite on some level, would it be fair to say that everyone is racist on some level? And if everyone is racist on some level, do you make distinctions in regards to the levels of racism, does that matter?

Whats a more racist statement?

Trump speaking to AA, "what do you have to lose", or Clinton's, "super predator and brought to heel" comment?
 
1. So if you agree with someones agenda, and they haven't flipped much, but their supporters are not the people you would normally associate with, will you abandon that person for that one factor?

2. In more blunt words, if people thought the person you supported was a racist, but you didn't think so, would you withdraw support for that person because other people believe so?

3. Also, if everyone is a hypocrite on some level, would it be fair to say that everyone is racist on some level? And if everyone is racist on some level, do you make distinctions in regards to the levels of racism, does that matter?

1. I'll give you the perfect example of this: When I was a conspiracy theorist 10 years ago in the 2008 elections, I at first flirted with the idea of checking out Ron Paul. Back then I did like some of what he said (mostly because I was naive and stupid and studied no policy or backgrounds whatsoever). But he had crazy supporters who alienated me in a very personal way. Some went so far as to kick me off a forum because I didn't agree with what they said. So I did not vote for Ron Paul and now am one of his most vocal opponents. Is that the answer you were looking for "moderate"?

2. I do not associate with or vote for racists.

3. see 2.
 
I won't go through the motions of citing hypocritical instances on both sides. My point is i always thought hypocrisy was cured when the perpetrator had to acknowledge it and adjust. It seems now though, that hypocrisy is a non issue, even when one is caught in it.

So my questions is in your opinion, does hypocrisy matter in this day and age, at least in politics?

For example, some of the rich are concerned with global warming while using private jets and consuming more than the average person. The left are for "social justice", until Asians start out performing them in SAT scores (Harvard), this has not been reconciled as far as i know.

The right are pro life, until the baby is born and then they don't care. I don't think that is necessarily hypocritical. Another example could be that the right says they care about the federal budget, but will blow it up for the military, again i don't think that is necessarily hypocritical because defense is necessary to survive.

In a nutshell, do you care about hypocrisy if you are a fan of the person in question otherwise? I thought being caught in hypocrisy required reflection and correction but it doesn't seem to be the case these days.

I notice hypocrisy and abhor its manifestation, but hypocrisy and instances of it are but "canaries in a coal mine." Hypocrisy is a symptomatic trait evinced by the interplay of several of a hypocrite's core character traits: pride, avarice, iniquity, mendacity and/or venality. Hypocrisy reflects intellectually introspective indolence, resulting in one's lacking a coherent set of fundamental principles.

What matters to me is, then, is voter apathy that allows one, voters, to (1) knowingly forbear placing into positions of public trust individuals who exhibit those qualities and (2) not only don't hold such actors accountable for exhibiting them, but worse, defend and/or exculpate those actors' core repugnance.

I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche​

Applying Neitzsche's model:

"I'm not upset that you're a hypocrite. I'm upset that I trusted you. I'm disappointed that you abused my trust. I'm annoyed that I can't trust you again and that I must find someone to replace you."
 
1. I'll give you the perfect example of this: When I was a conspiracy theorist 10 years ago in the 2008 elections, I at first flirted with the idea of checking out Ron Paul. Back then I did like some of what he said (mostly because I was naive and stupid and studied no policy or backgrounds whatsoever). But he had crazy supporters who alienated me in a very personal way. Some went so far as to kick me off a forum because I didn't agree with what they said. So I did not vote for Ron Paul and now am one of his most vocal opponents. Is that the answer you were looking for "moderate"?

2. I do not associate with or vote for racists.

3. see 2.

1. Oh trust me i'm definitely moderate, lately the left has pushed many people to the center-right because of their all or nothing approach to social policies.

2. You've missed my point, both Hillary and Trump are racist depending on who you talk to. So its not about who you would associate with or vote for. The point is, if you thought someone was a good candidate and was saying everything you wanted to hear and he/she resonated with you on many levels, would you withdraw support for that person based off the perception of others, even if you don't see what they see?

And to tie this in with the OP, if hypocrisy doesn't matter as much as one would think, does it follow that racism does not matter as much as one would think? Would that explain why a large block of Obama voters also voted for Trump?

Bernie Sanders was the clear peoples choice in 2016, i believe that to be the case (zero racism associated with him). However, two people who could both be charged with being racist ended up in the finals to choose from.
 
2.The point is, if you thought someone was a good candidate and was saying everything you wanted to hear and he/she resonated with you on many levels, would you withdraw support for that person based off the perception of others, even if you don't see what they see?

I already gave an example that answered this question. See my experience with Paulbots.
 
I notice hypocrisy and abhor its manifestation, but hypocrisy and instances of it are but "canaries in a coal mine." Hypocrisy is a symptomatic trait evinced by the interplay of several of a hypocrite's core character traits: pride, avarice, iniquity, mendacity and/or venality. Hypocrisy reflects intellectually introspective indolence, resulting in one's lacking a coherent set of fundamental principles.

What matters to me is, then, is voter apathy that allows one, voters, to (1) knowingly forbear placing into positions of public trust individuals who exhibit those qualities and (2) not only don't hold such actors accountable for exhibiting them, but worse, defend and/or exculpate those actors' core repugnance.

I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche​

Applying Neitzsche's model:

"I'm not upset that you're a hypocrite. I'm upset that I trusted you. I'm disappointed that you abused my trust. I'm annoyed that I can't trust you again and that I must find someone to replace you."

I like the Neitzsche reference, however, in this climate the first three sentences in your last application of the quote holds, but the last begs the question, has the "establishment" ruined their trust factor so much so that it allowed someone like Trump to emerge? If that is the case, isn't a Trump like presidency due? A replacement of what people thought they could trust?
 
I read the idea somewhere (I think in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age) that hypocrisy just means that we have standards we have yet to achieve.

The idea being that it's better to have higher standards than what you can actually accomplish, compared to having already attained your highest possible standards.

It doesn't take away from the goal that you have failed to accomplish it (yet.)

Still, it's galling and I do think it amounts to a pet peeve for many people.
 
I already gave an example that answered this question. See my experience with Paulbots.

So you are saying that you let bullies change your mind? You muddied up your response by adding that you were naive, stupid, and studied none at the time. If you weren't naive, stupid, and had studied and stilled supported Ron Paul, you would withdraw your support if you didn't get along with his other supporters? That's not good and i think that is where most of the anti Trump reside.
 
I like the Neitzsche reference, however, in this climate the first three sentences in your last application of the quote holds, but the last begs the question, has the "establishment" ruined their trust factor so much so that it allowed someone like Trump to emerge? If that is the case, isn't a Trump like presidency due? A replacement of what people thought they could trust?

Red:
No.


Blue:
There isn't now, nor was there in 20-anything-teen, legitimate basis for thinking Trump could be trusted. By 2013 there was clear and unequivocal proof of Trump's having lied under oath in a deposition, some 30 separate times in that one deposition. That was no secret! And one need not be a genius or inordinately circumspect to know that a person who'll lie under oath will with unvarnished alacrity lie when not under oath.
 
Last edited:
Well if you noticed, i gave two examples of the right, and one each of the left and the rich, thought that would balance out my intentions. I don't want to make this a right/left debate, because both sides are guilty.
I guess my point is, if hypocrisy is supposed to be a negative attribute, why does it seem like no one cares?
Another example, Hillary Clinton implied that black people are super predators and that they needed to be brought to heel in 1996, that's racist, but the left supports her full throttle till this day and calls Trump a racist. Bill Clinton put more black people in prison than any other president but somehow he is a hero of the left. How is this possible at the same time? If i am missing any good examples on the right please inform me.
Clinton put people in prison?
Hillary implied something?

So, you're still at it. I doubt the sincerity of your mission.

How can people tell real hypocrisy from this made-up hypocrisy that right wing propagandists push 24/7? They try to muddy the water.
It makes it so that no one really cares, and if their party engages in actual hypocrisy, then it looks normal, or moot.

But again, most examples of hypocrisy are largely irrelevant fluff for partisan news.

Trump yelling about illegal immigrants, when he has them working for his own businesses.
Trump claiming anyone who pleads the 5th is guilty, but then he claims Flynn and Stone aren't guilty.

Etc.

These flip-flops of position when it suits him, are clearly issues...but they have to get in line behind the other 7100 issues of Trump's.
If it was something a president got caught in once or twice in an administration, that's one thing. To do it constantly...at what point does "us caring" change anything? It's his supporters that have to hold his feet to the fire, because they are the only ones he's listening to. And they so far have declared that Trump can do whatsoever wants, and they will support him. No standards, no ethics, no christian values, no reason, no common sense, no truth, matters. Hypocrisy? It's just another empty tin can in the pile of steaming garbage.
 
So you are saying that you let bullies change your mind? You muddied up your response by adding that you were naive, stupid, and studied none at the time. If you weren't naive, stupid, and had studied and stilled supported Ron Paul, you would withdraw your support if you didn't get along with his other supporters? That's not good and i think that is where most of the anti Trump reside.

Moderate people generally do not call people anti-trump. And the "bullies" caused me to reconsider support because I didn't believe in the stuff they were saying, you know, that's why they were "bullies" and I didn't want to associate myself with people like that. Do you think it's a redeeming quality to easily be bullied into believing something you don't???
 
Red:
No.


Blue:
There isn't now, nor was there in 20-anything-teen, legitimate basis for thinking Trump could be trusted. By 2013 there was clear and unequivocal proof of Trump's having lied under oath in a deposition, some 30 separate times in that one deposition. That was no secret! And one need not be a genius or inordinately circumspect to know that a person who'll lie under oath will with unvarnished alacrity lie when not under oath.

I don't think the people necessarily needed or required trust in regards to Trump because the bar for trusting Politicians could not be lower unless it was under ground. So he was shielded from that because of the behaviors of all the politicians before him.

He lied under oath about what in 2013? If there is clear proof as you say, what is the hold up? The lack of consequences lead me to believe that he either did not lie under oath, or what he lied about was of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.
 
Moderate people generally do not call people anti-trump. And the "bullies" caused me to reconsider support because I didn't believe in the stuff they were saying, you know, that's why they were "bullies" and I didn't want to associate myself with people like that. Do you think it's a redeeming quality to easily be bullied into believing something you don't???

Anti-Trump people self identify as anti-Trump, its not an accusation. It sounded like you backed off your beliefs because the people on the fringes rubbed you the wrong way. If you don't mind elaborating, what did you like about Ron Paul that changed? As far i know he hasn't changed much. He may be one of the least hypocritical people in government.
 
I won't go through the motions of citing hypocritical instances on both sides. My point is i always thought hypocrisy was cured when the perpetrator had to acknowledge it and adjust. It seems now though, that hypocrisy is a non issue, even when one is caught in it.

So my questions is in your opinion, does hypocrisy matter in this day and age, at least in politics?

For example, some of the rich are concerned with global warming while using private jets and consuming more than the average person. The left are for "social justice", until Asians start out performing them in SAT scores (Harvard), this has not been reconciled as far as i know.

The right are pro life, until the baby is born and then they don't care. I don't think that is necessarily hypocritical. Another example could be that the right says they care about the federal budget, but will blow it up for the military, again i don't think that is necessarily hypocritical because defense is necessary to survive.

In a nutshell, do you care about hypocrisy if you are a fan of the person in question otherwise? I thought being caught in hypocrisy required reflection and correction but it doesn't seem to be the case these days.

I like hypocrisy... it makes things interesting.
 
Clinton put people in prison?
Hillary implied something?

So, you're still at it. I doubt the sincerity of your mission.

How can people tell real hypocrisy from this made-up hypocrisy that right wing propagandists push 24/7? They try to muddy the water.
It makes it so that no one really cares, and if their party engages in actual hypocrisy, then it looks normal, or moot.

But again, most examples of hypocrisy are largely irrelevant fluff for partisan news.

Trump yelling about illegal immigrants, when he has them working for his own businesses.
Trump claiming anyone who pleads the 5th is guilty, but then he claims Flynn and Stone aren't guilty.

Etc.

These flip-flops of position when it suits him, are clearly issues...but they have to get in line behind the other 7100 issues of Trump's.
If it was something a president got caught in once or twice in an administration, that's one thing. To do it constantly...at what point does "us caring" change anything? It's his supporters that have to hold his feet to the fire, because they are the only ones he's listening to. And they so far have declared that Trump can do whatsoever wants, and they will support him. No standards, no ethics, no christian values, no reason, no common sense, no truth, matters. Hypocrisy? It's just another empty tin can in the pile of steaming garbage.

I have no mission, its a question out of curiosity.

How can people tell? Use their brain? Perfect example, immigration, Trump only continued the polices that were already in place. The left doesn't care.



Hypocrisy?
 
I have no mission, its a question out of curiosity.
How can people tell? Use their brain? Perfect example, immigration, Trump only continued the polices that were already in place. The left doesn't care.
Hypocrisy?

Did you just post a Daily Caller youtube video as evidence of leftist hypocrisy?

Three strikes you're out buddy. I think your posts are partisan propaganda, you're only acting like you're trying to understand, discuss, or debate.
In realty, you appear to just be pushing the party line.
 
Did you just post a Daily Caller youtube video as evidence of leftist hypocrisy?

Three strikes you're out buddy. I think your posts are partisan propaganda, you're only acting like you're trying to understand, discuss, or debate.
In realty, you appear to just be pushing the party line.

He plays cricket were he gets ten unders and a game can last three days...
 
Back
Top Bottom