Can you imagine if Biden did/said that?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TarSpiel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 97
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
This entire thread is about hypocrisy, basically. I've said before and I'll say again: I think MAGAs view hypocrisy completely differently than non-MAGAs, especially educated non-MAGAs.

We -- i.e. the more educated class -- view ourselves as having some positive relationship with truth. Maybe we actively pursue truth in our lives through study and knowledge; or we acknowledge truth in practice; and we like our morality to be based in truth, because it feels more like morality that way. On this account, hypocrisy is a sign of weakness. There's no better way to refute an argument by a Dunning-Kruger type saying X than to show them saying not X at some other time.

To MAGA, hypocrisy is a feature. They see it as a privilege. They see it as something that rich and powerful people get to do, and thus they want that power. And of course, there is plenty of hypocrisy there. But to MAGA, minimizing hypocrisy is just for losers. To be powerful is to impose rules or requirements on others that you don't have to follow yourself.

Now, there are a couple of follow-ups, right? What a simpleton might see as hypocrisy is often a difference in context. The hypocrisy is explained away by subtlety. MAGA views subtlety as a trick. This is related to their aversion to study or knowledge. So when we say, "military intervention in Iraq is bad," they say, "well, Clinton intervened with military assistance in Kosovo, you're just being hypocritical." That the Kosovo intervention was a) wasn't and was never intended to be an occupation; that b) it was a clear case of self-defense for the Kosovars that we were helping with; c) that there were ongoing slaughters and had been for half a decade at least; d) it was not based on lies; and e) it was conducted by NATO under the US lead -- none of that matters to MAGA. It requires too much thought. They prefer to throw mud.

Second, everybody is a little bit hypocritical at times, no matter how we try to avoid it. That's because human cognition is imperfect. Sometimes hypocrisy isn't about bad faith; it's about not fully understanding the issue being discussed. Which is why, in educated circles, we point out hypocrisies and expect truth-seekers to minimize them, while taking that same criticism and adjusting our views in reciprocation.

Well, that's what happens in educated circles in theory. The reality is that nobody rises to prominence by admitting that their work was incorrect. Changing your views in response to criticism is not a way to get published or get tenure. That's what I learned in the policy world when I was thinking about going into it. Policy people just aren't always that concerned about results; they are more interested in being a mentioned name in paragraphs like, "some policy people argue X; others argue Y; others still argue Z." And of course, most of those paragraphs are written in papers that will say all of that is wrong, and that the best approach is W.

I can't really say exactly why the policy community is that way, but I suspect it's because the incentives are too skewed to avoid. Your NGO doesn't get funding by saying, "we're going to do the same thing as that other group, because it works." It gets funding by saying, "what that other group is doing is pretty good, but what we're going to do is even better." And when the law or policy community behaves this way, it will create hypocrisies as stances on different issues are inconsistent with each other. But why change your views when you -- and others, either in collaboration or separately -- can just a write a paper "harmonizing the different perspectives"? It used to frustrate me listening to people talk about their theories as if they were like general relativity and quantum mechanics -- two valid ways of looking at the world that happen to be inconsistent and it's bullshit. No, you aren't seeking a grand unified theory of anything. You're just simply refusing to acknowledge that the equation used in line 2 of your derivation is actually wrong.
 
superrific said:
This entire thread is about hypocrisy, basically. I've said before and I'll say again: I think MAGAs view hypocrisy completely differently than non-MAGAs, especially educated non-MAGAs.

We -- i.e. the more educated class -- view ourselves as having some positive relationship with truth. Maybe we actively pursue truth in our lives through study and knowledge; or we acknowledge truth in practice; and we like our morality to be based in truth, because it feels more like morality that way. On this account, hypocrisy is a sign of weakness. There's no better way to refute an argument by a Dunning-Kruger type saying X than to show them saying not X at some other time.

To MAGA, hypocrisy is a feature. They see it as a privilege. They see it as something that rich and powerful people get to do, and thus they want that power. And of course, there is plenty of hypocrisy there. But to MAGA, minimizing hypocrisy is just for losers. To be powerful is to impose rules or requirements on others that you don't have to follow yourself.

Now, there are a couple of follow-ups, right? What a simpleton might see as hypocrisy is often a difference in context. The hypocrisy is explained away by subtlety. MAGA views subtlety as a trick. This is related to their aversion to study or knowledge. So when we say, "military intervention in Iraq is bad," they say, "well, Clinton intervened with military assistance in Kosovo, you're just being hypocritical." That the Kosovo intervention was a) wasn't and was never intended to be an occupation; that b) it was a clear case of self-defense for the Kosovars that we were helping with; c) that there were ongoing slaughters and had been for half a decade at least; d) it was not based on lies; and e) it was conducted by NATO under the US lead -- none of that matters to MAGA. It requires too much thought. They prefer to throw mud.

Second, everybody is a little bit hypocritical at times, no matter how we try to avoid it. That's because human cognition is imperfect. Sometimes hypocrisy isn't about bad faith; it's about not fully understanding the issue being discussed. Which is why, in educated circles, we point out hypocrisies and expect truth-seekers to minimize them, while taking that same criticism and adjusting our views in reciprocation.

Well, that's what happens in educated circles in theory. The reality is that nobody rises to prominence by admitting that their work was incorrect. Changing your views in response to criticism is not a way to get published or get tenure. That's what I learned in the policy world when I was thinking about going into it. Policy people just aren't always that concerned about results; they are more interested in being a mentioned name in paragraphs like, "some policy people argue X; others argue Y; others still argue Z." And of course, most of those paragraphs are written in papers that will say all of that is wrong, and that the best approach is W.

I can't really say exactly why the policy community is that way, but I suspect it's because the incentives are too skewed to avoid. Your NGO doesn't get funding by saying, "we're going to do the same thing as that other group, because it works." It gets funding by saying, "what that other group is doing is pretty good, but what we're going to do is even better." And when the law or policy community behaves this way, it will create hypocrisies as stances on different issues are inconsistent with each other. But why change your views when you -- and others, either in collaboration or separately -- can just a write a paper "harmonizing the different perspectives"? It used to frustrate me listening to people talk about their theories as if they were like general relativity and quantum mechanics -- two valid ways of looking at the world that happen to be inconsistent and it's bullshit. No, you aren't seeking a grand unified theory of anything. You're just simply refusing to acknowledge that the equation used in line 2 of your derivation is actually wrong.
Click to expand...
I think you're definitely on to something here, Super. About how differently they view reality from the rest of us.

I thought about starting a thread about truth, lying, and society, but figured won't go far. So I'll just say that what this demonstrates is you cannot have a society with unaccountable lies and hypocrisy. As sweet as it may be for some. And as short-term rewarding.

This should be self-evident. Because it is.

Perhaps MAGA is inherently anti-social, despite all their talk about the country, civilization, community, etc. This harkens back to my comments from yesterday about Trumpism basically being "economic Nazism." Completely untenable and will eventually "brain" itself against the cage like one of Marlowe's Tamberlaine's victims.
 
superrific said:
Second, everybody is a little bit hypocritical at times, no matter how we try to avoid it.
Click to expand...

I think this is a more important factor than your first one, and probably by an order of magnitude. (I actually wonder if your number one is even true at all).

But I've been fascinated by studies in infant psychology and the roots of moral behavior being done at Yale and at other places, which have some strong indications that our moral psychology is deployed in service to our "us vs. them" social psychology. Even babies who cannot speak, whose prefrontal cortex is decades from full maturity, can at the drop of the hat excuse moral failings of those who they perceive as being on their "team," and can seem to desire or approve of punishment of those who are not on their "team." And that applies every bit to liberals as it does to MAGA. "'Rip down all hate,' I screamed" etc.

The trick is to get everyone to think of everyone else as "us," and good luck with that. Jesus tried to do that and they nailed him up to a cross for saying so. Our only hope is to be invaded by hostile aliens. But by then it'll be too late and we'll all be eating out of pet bowls with our names printed on them in the corner of some intergalactic warship.
 
EyeballKid said:
Groceries. Such an old-fashioned term, a beautiful term. A bag with different things in it

Click to expand...

So out of touch, but the cult didn't understand. A man that has probably never purchased his own groceries doesn't actually understand you or feel your pain.
 
superrific said:
This entire thread is about hypocrisy, basically. I've said before and I'll say again: I think MAGAs view hypocrisy completely differently than non-MAGAs, especially educated non-MAGAs.

We -- i.e. the more educated class -- view ourselves as having some positive relationship with truth. Maybe we actively pursue truth in our lives through study and knowledge; or we acknowledge truth in practice; and we like our morality to be based in truth, because it feels more like morality that way. On this account, hypocrisy is a sign of weakness. There's no better way to refute an argument by a Dunning-Kruger type saying X than to show them saying not X at some other time.

To MAGA, hypocrisy is a feature. They see it as a privilege. They see it as something that rich and powerful people get to do, and thus they want that power. And of course, there is plenty of hypocrisy there. But to MAGA, minimizing hypocrisy is just for losers. To be powerful is to impose rules or requirements on others that you don't have to follow yourself.

Now, there are a couple of follow-ups, right? What a simpleton might see as hypocrisy is often a difference in context. The hypocrisy is explained away by subtlety. MAGA views subtlety as a trick. This is related to their aversion to study or knowledge. So when we say, "military intervention in Iraq is bad," they say, "well, Clinton intervened with military assistance in Kosovo, you're just being hypocritical." That the Kosovo intervention was a) wasn't and was never intended to be an occupation; that b) it was a clear case of self-defense for the Kosovars that we were helping with; c) that there were ongoing slaughters and had been for half a decade at least; d) it was not based on lies; and e) it was conducted by NATO under the US lead -- none of that matters to MAGA. It requires too much thought. They prefer to throw mud.

Second, everybody is a little bit hypocritical at times, no matter how we try to avoid it. That's because human cognition is imperfect. Sometimes hypocrisy isn't about bad faith; it's about not fully understanding the issue being discussed. Which is why, in educated circles, we point out hypocrisies and expect truth-seekers to minimize them, while taking that same criticism and adjusting our views in reciprocation.

Well, that's what happens in educated circles in theory. The reality is that nobody rises to prominence by admitting that their work was incorrect. Changing your views in response to criticism is not a way to get published or get tenure. That's what I learned in the policy world when I was thinking about going into it. Policy people just aren't always that concerned about results; they are more interested in being a mentioned name in paragraphs like, "some policy people argue X; others argue Y; others still argue Z." And of course, most of those paragraphs are written in papers that will say all of that is wrong, and that the best approach is W.

I can't really say exactly why the policy community is that way, but I suspect it's because the incentives are too skewed to avoid. Your NGO doesn't get funding by saying, "we're going to do the same thing as that other group, because it works." It gets funding by saying, "what that other group is doing is pretty good, but what we're going to do is even better." And when the law or policy community behaves this way, it will create hypocrisies as stances on different issues are inconsistent with each other. But why change your views when you -- and others, either in collaboration or separately -- can just a write a paper "harmonizing the different perspectives"? It used to frustrate me listening to people talk about their theories as if they were like general relativity and quantum mechanics -- two valid ways of looking at the world that happen to be inconsistent and it's bullshit. No, you aren't seeking a grand unified theory of anything. You're just simply refusing to acknowledge that the equation used in line 2 of your derivation is actually wrong.
Click to expand...
I've said this before. Diversity is what makes America great. All your hypocrisy should go away if you have a diverse group. But a lot of America is deep red rural. The greater concentration of people the more diverse and liberal the community is. Thus the attacks on DEI. The attacks on anything that allows a lot of people to come together. Universities i.e. education. Cities i.e. safe havens. Immigration except from specific white countries. This is in conjunction with the singular ideology championed by dictatorship and communism. You can't make these attacks without asserting control. Religion and indoctrination. More hypocrisy but if people believe in a singular ideology then there is less diversity. Wealth is another way of controlling people. If everyone is rich nothing gets done without immigrants. See the middle east oil countries. This is where I think the tariffs come in. And fear is great at controlling people see DOGE. The reality is those in power want to keep people poorish since some wealth does lead to diversity ... until greed comes out. Nationalism where everyone should be a patriot however the definition of patriot is used as a control. Groups like LGTBQ bring differing views which cannot be allowed. Books teach different views. Must be banned. Science and of course medicine. Have always been a touchy subject for religious ideology. I do not need to expand. Lots of hypocrisy here too like the foundation of this country. Globalization. Funny. History shows greatness whenever an empire obtains diverse views and trade.

In the end the need to get people together is important. This needs to be done before the arrogance hence hypocrisy destroys the empire.
 
TarSpiel said:
I think this is a more important factor than your first one, and probably by an order of magnitude. (I actually wonder if your number one is even true at all).

But I've been fascinated by studies in infant psychology and the roots of moral behavior being done at Yale and at other places, which have some strong indications that our moral psychology is deployed in service to our "us vs. them" social psychology. Even babies who cannot speak, whose prefrontal cortex is decades from full maturity, can at the drop of the hat excuse moral failings of those who they perceive as being on their "team," and can seem to desire or approve of punishment of those who are not on their "team." And that applies every bit to liberals as it does to MAGA. "'Rip down all hate,' I screamed" etc.

The trick is to get everyone to think of everyone else as "us," and good luck with that. Jesus tried to do that and they nailed him up to a cross for saying so. Our only hope is to be invaded by hostile aliens. But by then it'll be too late and we'll all be eating out of pet bowls with our names printed on them in the corner of some intergalactic warship.
Click to expand...
My number 1 is an explanation for what is otherwise a baffling phenomenon that we see frequently in public statements by MAGAs, and I've seen it privately as well -- the complete and utter lack of shame of holding two contradictory positions at once. It's the stock and trade of both-siders, who seem to think it's a defense of their guy to point out bad behavior of the other team, when in fact it actually admits that their guy is doing something bad. The both-sider thinks he's exposing liberal hypocrisy, and in some cases perhaps so. But in every single case, the both-sider is himself always a hypocrite. It's the reason for his existence.

I can't say that this is an objectively provable explanation, but what to do with things like anti-vaxxers who say a) vaccines are dangerous; and b) it's OK if I don't get vaccinated because others do and so we have herd immunity? To me, Occam's Razor suggests that what's going on there is hypocrisy as privilege. Their desired policy is for other people to do things that they should be exempted from doing.

Do you have any links to those studies or articles about them? I don't want to make you google for me, but I have a migraine today.
 
superrific said:
My number 1 is an explanation for what is otherwise a baffling phenomenon that we see frequently in public statements by MAGAs, and I've seen it privately as well -- the complete and utter lack of shame of holding two contradictory positions at once. It's the stock and trade of both-siders, who seem to think it's a defense of their guy to point out bad behavior of the other team, when in fact it actually admits that their guy is doing something bad. The both-sider thinks he's exposing liberal hypocrisy, and in some cases perhaps so. But in every single case, the both-sider is himself always a hypocrite. It's the reason for his existence.

I can't say that this is an objectively provable explanation, but what to do with things like anti-vaxxers who say a) vaccines are dangerous; and b) it's OK if I don't get vaccinated because others do and so we have herd immunity? To me, Occam's Razor suggests that what's going on there is hypocrisy as privilege. Their desired policy is for other people to do things that they should be exempted from doing.

Do you have any links to those studies or articles about them? I don't want to make you google for me, but I have a migraine today.
Click to expand...
Hey Super,

Here's the 60 minutes clip that got me interested in the subject. I don't keep up with the scholarly literature....my impression is that there is a lot of it, but I read the popularizations of the core findings & find them incredibly interesting.
 
TarSpiel said:
Hey Super,

Here's the 60 minutes clip that got me interested in the subject. I don't keep up with the scholarly literature....my impression is that there is a lot of it, but I read the popularizations of the core findings & find them incredibly interesting.
Click to expand...
link absent
 
superrific said:
My number 1 is an explanation for what is otherwise a baffling phenomenon that we see frequently in public statements by MAGAs, and I've seen it privately as well -- the complete and utter lack of shame of holding two contradictory positions at once. It's the stock and trade of both-siders, who seem to think it's a defense of their guy to point out bad behavior of the other team, when in fact it actually admits that their guy is doing something bad. The both-sider thinks he's exposing liberal hypocrisy, and in some cases perhaps so. But in every single case, the both-sider is himself always a hypocrite. It's the reason for his existence.

I can't say that this is an objectively provable explanation, but what to do with things like anti-vaxxers who say a) vaccines are dangerous; and b) it's OK if I don't get vaccinated because others do and so we have herd immunity? To me, Occam's Razor suggests that what's going on there is hypocrisy as privilege. Their desired policy is for other people to do things that they should be exempted from doing.

Do you have any links to those studies or articles about them? I don't want to make you google for me, but I have a migraine today.
Click to expand...
MAGA has extraordinary distrust for anything Democrat or liberal, so they won't give an inch.... not even a millimeter because why would you give a millimeter to "Marxist, Communist, lying soulless animals who literally want to destroy the country? I mean, you guys already stole an election because you were so scared of Trump. You used a fake China virus to test Marshall Law because, when the time comes for you to take over the country, you'll know we'll just fold to your demands. You clearly have no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution. You're importing brown people so they can help steal more elections! We're just trying to save the country!"
 
ZenMode said:
MAGA has extraordinary distrust for anything Democrat or liberal, so they won't give an inch.... not even a millimeter because why would you give a millimeter to "Marxist, Communist, lying soulless animals who literally want to destroy the country? I mean, you guys already stole an election because you were so scared of Trump. You used a fake China virus to test Marshall Law because, when the time comes for you to take over the country, you'll know we'll just fold to your demands. You clearly have no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution. You're importing brown people so they can help steal more elections! We're just trying to save the country!"
Click to expand...
Max Greenfield Reaction GIF by CBS
 
here we go batman GIF

#TradeWar

Member states of the European Union (E.U.) have agreed to tariffs on a range of U.S. products in response to President Trump’s sweeping new import taxes.

EU states voted Wednesday to “introduce trade countermeasures” against the U.S., the European Commission said in a statement.

The retaliatory tariffs are in response to U.S. import taxes on steel and aluminum that were initiated in March, the Commission said. Duties will start being collected from European importers on April 15.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top