3 ms·

> Innumerate politicians who themselves mandate harsh covid restrictions living their lives ignoring their own mandates - serial violators Gavin Newsom and Phil

> Innumerate politicians who themselves mandate harsh covid restrictions living their lives ignoring their own mandates - serial violators Gavin Newsom and Phil Murphy got re-elected! In the Newsom case, his opponent was someone claiming it was all a bunch of nonsense and if elected he'd do away with all restrictions immediately, so not a very strong vote for the person who's upset that he didn't take the whole thing seriously enough.

josephcsible 5y ago
If Newsom says that you'll probably die if somebody without a mask stands next to you, and he stands next to you without a mask, then either he's a liar or he doesn't care about your life. If his opponent says you'll almost certainly not die just because somebody without a mask stands next to you, and he stands next to you without a mask, he can still care about your life and be honest.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Well yes, if you replace the actual claims about coronavirus and masks with different, absurd ones, then the argument is simple to counter. What if you didn't do that, though? I would guess many voters don't want to vote for someone they saw as a lunatic, even if he acts in a way that's very consistent with his own beliefs. Exit polling showed coronavirus was a big issue for voters and they didn’t think Newsom went far enough.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The point is that Newsom is in the wrong whether or not you believe masks are important to keep people safe. If they are important, then he's in the wrong for not wearing one himself. If they're not, then he's in the wrong for issuing the mandate.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Yes. But my point is voters who are concerned about COVID had the choice between a guy who had their preferred policies, but was a hypocrite, or a different guy who was sincerely committed to policies they thought were wrongheaded and dangerous. Why would they ever choose the latter, if these are the only options?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - cudgy 5y ago
        Yet states and countries that did not have significant Covid restrictions have not suffered at the level politicians like Newsom and Fauci were implying they would.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      It’s easy to be outraged at examples of hypocrisy. They piss me off too. But looking at the bigger picture, everybody is a hypocrite. I’m not sure it’s even possible to have a fully consistent moral philosophy, let alone always act in accordance with it.
      - JKCalhoun 5y ago
        I don't agree with that. I think you can have a moral philosophy that makes allowances. Using an example from a commentor above, the woman who steals baby formula so her child can survive. My philosophy can hold the idea that stealing is wrong but that it is justified if a life will be lost due to the failings of the wealthy and greater society to have put that person in that difficult situation. That's not hypocritical, that is a philosophy that allows for nuance.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        Yes, but I don't think that's the idea. If you look at the body of work of any essayist, sermon-writer, etc., you'll find that eventually they end up contradicting themselves somehow. It's really hard not to.

josephcsible 5y ago

If Newsom says that you'll probably die if somebody without a mask stands next to you, and he stands next to you without a mask, then either he's a liar or he doesn't care about your life. If his opponent says you'll almost certainly not die just because somebody without a mask stands next to you, and he stands next to you without a mask, he can still care about your life and be honest.

emodendroket 5y ago
Well yes, if you replace the actual claims about coronavirus and masks with different, absurd ones, then the argument is simple to counter. What if you didn't do that, though? I would guess many voters don't want to vote for someone they saw as a lunatic, even if he acts in a way that's very consistent with his own beliefs. Exit polling showed coronavirus was a big issue for voters and they didn’t think Newsom went far enough.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The point is that Newsom is in the wrong whether or not you believe masks are important to keep people safe. If they are important, then he's in the wrong for not wearing one himself. If they're not, then he's in the wrong for issuing the mandate.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Yes. But my point is voters who are concerned about COVID had the choice between a guy who had their preferred policies, but was a hypocrite, or a different guy who was sincerely committed to policies they thought were wrongheaded and dangerous. Why would they ever choose the latter, if these are the only options?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - cudgy 5y ago
      Yet states and countries that did not have significant Covid restrictions have not suffered at the level politicians like Newsom and Fauci were implying they would.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    It’s easy to be outraged at examples of hypocrisy. They piss me off too. But looking at the bigger picture, everybody is a hypocrite. I’m not sure it’s even possible to have a fully consistent moral philosophy, let alone always act in accordance with it.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      I don't agree with that. I think you can have a moral philosophy that makes allowances. Using an example from a commentor above, the woman who steals baby formula so her child can survive. My philosophy can hold the idea that stealing is wrong but that it is justified if a life will be lost due to the failings of the wealthy and greater society to have put that person in that difficult situation. That's not hypocritical, that is a philosophy that allows for nuance.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Yes, but I don't think that's the idea. If you look at the body of work of any essayist, sermon-writer, etc., you'll find that eventually they end up contradicting themselves somehow. It's really hard not to.