4 ms·
Yes to all for me as well. Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words. It'd just make the pe
by notapenny 5y ago
Yes to all for me as well. Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words. It'd just make the person uttering them a hypocrite or a liar. Or maybe just someone who can't live up to some idea they have, who knows.
You're inferring me being upset though and ignoring what I'm pointing out specifically; the language. It isn't the drift, it's how the drift.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago> Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words. I think that even when two people agree on the problem statement; political take might make them differ greatly on what they think the correct solution is. That doesn't "invalidate the words" even if you think that the proposed solution is e.g. unethical, impractical, not likely to actually fix the problem, captured by a big business, mere crowd-pleasing window-dressing, or otherwise inadvisable. The actions indicate how a person responds to a belief. It's relevant. For example, in the context of globalization, an answer is "just prevent the globalization of industrialization". An answer to immigration was "build a border wall". Supporting those answers might make you a bad person, will reveal a lot about your actual politics, but does not "invalidate the words".