Politics Hypocrisy of The Right.

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Gethelred said:
They sound like a frat for neo-nazis.
Click to expand...

That would be...accurate from what Ive researched about them. They want police to be praised as the heroes of society and everyone to fall in line with the status quo...but also dont want big government or liberals having a say.
 
A truism!

One of the foundational and increasingly powerful forces of right-wing politics is an ability to constantly find new enemies to blame for domestic woes.

@NesrineMalik
 
Gethelred said:
It's a good deal closer.

Who are the Proud Boys?
Click to expand...
Feigning ignorance, really?
Newton's third law applied to sociology.

Problem, is, perpetual motion isn't a reality yet.
Push a pendulum hard in one direction, and it'll swing back in the other... with just a little less force each time.
 
Last edited:
Gethelred said:
If it's so simple, there should be no difficulty in explaining it.

I despise the obsession with hypocrisy, because hypocrisy alone does not mean that you are wrong. To accuse/smear someone/a position with being hypocritical is to avoid their argument entirely in favour of attacking their behaviour or person. This is not productive, and doesn't serve any position save the one that you already hold.

I've said it in the other thread, and I'll say it again: these are pretty ******* simple things to do. For something to function in this thread, it needs to demonstrate 1) hypocrisy, and 2) be 'of the right', so needs to somewhat be about right wing concerns. A reddit post about dating does not really demonstrate hypocricy, nor does it discuss right/left wing issues at all, so doesn't really qualify for this thread.

And memes can fu** right off.
Click to expand...
It depends a little on what it is. I think the meme about the $2000 pointed out a valid hypocrisy. I've got no idea how the dating one is relevant to the thread. If we're showing individual people on the right (or left for the other thread) are hypocrites/liars, well the threads will fill up pretty quickly.

I think this thread and the left one can be useful. It does provide a forum for both sides to respond to unfair criticisms. And I think it can be good to point out when politicians/activists/media opinion makers are hypocritical; albeit, I agree that doesn't automatically mean they're wrong.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ants said:
It depends a little on what it is. I think the meme about the $2000 pointed out a valid hypocrisy. I've got no idea how the dating one is relevant to the thread. If we're showing individual people on the right (or left for the other thread) are hypocrites/liars, well the threads will fill up pretty quickly.

I think this thread and the left one can be useful. It does provide a forum for both sides to respond to unfair criticisms. And I think it can be good to point out when politicians/activists/media opinion makers are hypocritical; albeit, I agree that doesn't automatically mean they're wrong.
Click to expand...
It automatically means they're wrong in at least 50% of their positions.
 
Ants said:
It depends a little on what it is. I think the meme about the $2000 pointed out a valid hypocrisy. I've got no idea how the dating one is relevant to the thread. If we're showing individual people on the right (or left for the other thread) are hypocrites/liars, well the threads will fill up pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
See, you'd think so, but for whatever reason people have filled the other thread with stuff that either isn't hypocrisy or isn't directed at the left. This thread isn't so well populated, and in general there's been a bit more effort exerted here to at least attempt the thread topic.

I pull this up because I think actual specific hypocrisy is tricky to prove, and when it pertains to a specific subject - outside the law and order politicians who visit prostitutes or get their children of drugs charges - it's not so easily categorized. I also wish these threads would go the way of the dodo.
I think this thread and the left one can be useful. It does provide a forum for both sides to respond to unfair criticisms. And I think it can be good to point out when politicians/activists/media opinion makers are hypocritical; albeit, I agree that doesn't automatically mean they're wrong.
Click to expand...
Most of the content of both threads is people responding to false accusations of hypocrisy. I've read them. What can I say; I was extremely bored during night shifts last year.

As for the idea that hypocrisy doesn't automatically mean someone is wrong, hypocrisy alone does not have anything to do with the proposition one puts forth. There's no automatically necessary. Hypocrisy comes from the person who is saying something, not from the subject/content of what they're saying.

It's an ad hominem attack, and that's all it is.
FredLeDeux said:
It automatically means they're wrong in at least 50% of their positions.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to know how/why.
 
Gethelred said:
......
Most of the content of both threads is people responding to false accusations of hypocrisy. I've read them. What can I say; I was extremely bored during night shifts last year.

As for the idea that hypocrisy doesn't automatically mean someone is wrong, hypocrisy alone does not have anything to do with the proposition one puts forth. There's no automatically necessary. Hypocrisy comes from the person who is saying something, not from the subject/content of what they're saying.

It's an ad hominem attack, and that's all it is.
Click to expand...
It depends on the context. If someone is making an Argument for A, responding "but that is hypocritical" is, I agree with you, not a relevant argument. Whether someone is being hypocritical, or simply their position has changed (or neither has occurred and they've been consistent), doesn't have any relevancy for whether Argument A is a good or bad idea/position.

However, if you are discussing a politician, media outlet, movement, activist, etc., then whether or not their behaviour has been hypocritical is relevant. It points to whether that person/group/whatever is consistent in their arguments, a good faith debater, trustworthy, and potentially what their real stance is (if actions are believable and repeatable, while words are just noise). Pointing out that an activist says A in some circumstances, but B in others, raises questions of whether they really support A, and if they're trustworthy. It can also help inform how someone might speak/act in future situations. For people who are trying to shape public opinion, there is also a reasonably fair argument that whether they behave consistent to what they say is important in whether you should give them the time of day.

As an example. Pointing out that Trump called for looters to be shot, for 10 year jail terms for people doing property damage to federal buildings during the protests earlier in 2020, while encouraging the current protesters/rioters and saying he loves them and knows how they feel, helps demonstrate the inconsistency of Trump's positions when they relate to political opponents versus supporters. Which then helps inform the reader on the degree to which Trump's spoken words should be believed. It also points to how we might expect him to behave in future situations.
 
YippeeYiYeo said:
hey moron.

Six months of burning down buildings, looting businesses and chasing police out of their own precincts with bricks and molotovs is not the equivalent of 2 hours of trespassing on Capitol house and walking between the velvet ropes.
Click to expand...
So, 100% of Trumpist demos are "violent" (if you count armed gangs smashing into and looting public buildings, stealing computers and beating a cop to death with a fire extinguisher as "violent"), compared with 7% of BLM protests.
​
More than 93% of the 7,750 Black Lives Matter protests in all 50 states and Washington D.C. between May 26 and August 22 were peaceful, according to a report by the nonprofit Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project which researches political violence and protests across the world.​
​
More than 2,400 locations reported peaceful protests, while fewer than 220 reported “violent demonstrations.” The authors define violent demonstrations as including “acts targeting other individuals, property, businesses, other rioting groups or armed actors.” Their definition includes anything from “fighting back against police” to vandalism, property destruction looting, road-blocking using barricades, burning tires or other materials, and even toppling statues of “colonial figures, slave owners and Confederate leaders”. Where protests did turn violent they were “largely confined to specific blocks,” .​
​
 
FredLeDeux said:
So, 100% of Trumpist demos are "violent" (if you count armed gangs smashing into and looting public buildings, stealing computers and beating a cop to death with a fire extinguisher as "violent"), compared with 7% of BLM protests.
​
More than 93% of the 7,750 Black Lives Matter protests in all 50 states and Washington D.C. between May 26 and August 22 were peaceful, according to a report by the nonprofit Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project which researches political violence and protests across the world.​
​
More than 2,400 locations reported peaceful protests, while fewer than 220 reported “violent demonstrations.” The authors define violent demonstrations as including “acts targeting other individuals, property, businesses, other rioting groups or armed actors.” Their definition includes anything from “fighting back against police” to vandalism, property destruction looting, road-blocking using barricades, burning tires or other materials, and even toppling statues of “colonial figures, slave owners and Confederate leaders”. Where protests did turn violent they were “largely confined to specific blocks,” .​
​
Click to expand...

Alternatively, we can use the other reasoning! Those 7% of violence in the BLM protests were instigated by undercover Proud Boy members encouraging the looting and destruction to make the movement LOOK bad!

Man, this is easy when we use their own logic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CD Xbow
Saudi Arabia to chair UN forum on women's rights
Replies
5
Views
277
Ballarat Bob
B
fishardansin
Politics Right-wing reactionaries.
Replies
22
Views
1K
Episode IV
E
Grin
Society/Culture Do less intelligent people gravitate to conservative/right wing ideology?
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
296
Views
13K
Chief
Chief
Gralin
Qld Government suspends Human Rights Charter to pass bill to lock kids up in adult prisons
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Seeds
Seeds
Aristotle Pickett
Remove Sam Newman from the Hall of Fame petition.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
448
Views
15K
Chief
Chief
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
barreness
barreness
zeggie
  • Locked
Society/Culture Ending the centralisation of corporate power increasingly undermining government and culture.
2
Replies
29
Views
899
zeggie
zeggie

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top