4 ms·
I assume the conspiratorial viewpoint would be, "the people in charge of making the rules aren't following them, so the rules must not be important and are just
by beisner 6y ago
I assume the conspiratorial viewpoint would be, "the people in charge of making the rules aren't following them, so the rules must not be important and are just a power-grab blah blah blah".
- tunesmith 6y agoWhich would pre-suppose that people in power are incapable of making mistakes.
- onecommentman 6y agoI’ve always interpreted the word “mistake” as an unintended blunder. You forget to carry the two. An act of hypocrisy implies person A asking/requiring others to act in manner X, and an intentional act by person A that is clearly not in manner X. In colloquial English, “Do as I say, not as I do.” An intentional offense is not a mistake by the above definition, because it was intended and not accidental. It can be a tort, a criminal offense, a sin, an idiocy...but not that neutral word “mistake”. Using the word “mistake” neuters the act of its moral import and implicitly absolves those who acted of moral failing. Would you agree to the wording “which would pre-suppose that people in power are incapable of an act devoid of judgement or awareness of their authority position as having just asked/required folks to do the opposite” Because, in the case of politicians or anyone making their living from their fame, that is a act of gross professional incompetence.