3 ms·
I think it is more virtuous to send honest signals than to be a hypocrite. Also, "virtue" in these cases usually just means conforming to social pressure and t
by finite_jest 5y ago
I think it is more virtuous to send honest signals than to be a hypocrite.
Also, "virtue" in these cases usually just means conforming to social pressure and the norms of particularly vociferous factions of society.
Even if you happen to agree with those norms (which are seen as Draconian by many), the sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude probably won't help the cause in the long run.
- breakyerself 5y agoHonesty is better than hypocrisy although the two are not mutually exclusive. More often one has to choose between being honest and hypocritical or being dishonest and consistent. What evidence do you have that this move by Neil Young is anything other than his honest feelings on the subject? A lot of people are sick of Rogan spreading BS. It's not suprising someone like Young would choose to use what little leverage they have to push for him to be removed.
- p1necone 5y agoEngage with peoples points, don't just claim that they're sanctimonious or that there's a lot of them, so you get to ignore them - that's absurd. A lot of people sharing the same opinion doesn't magically make that opinion less valid, engaging with the world as if there's some great conspiracy against you is counterproductive.
- finite_jest 5y ago> that there's a lot of them, I kinda made the opposite of the that claim in my comment :-) I think a lot of people see the norms "virtue signallers" want to impose as Draconian. I don't think a guy having controversial guests on his podcasts is something many people find intolerable.