4 ms·

The concept of hypocrisy is outdated. In contemporary times, of course everyone wants to be treated well and their rivals treated worse. It's like if there is a

by ftxbro 3y ago

The concept of hypocrisy is outdated. In contemporary times, of course everyone wants to be treated well and their rivals treated worse. It's like if there is a boxing match, is it hypocrisy if each player thinks they should win and the other should lose. It's not like someone's hypocrisy will be dramatically revealed and they will be exiled in shame.

mullingitover 3y ago
I think it's still relevant when the hypocrite is claiming that they have a principle, an unambiguous matter of right and wrong. Unprincipled hostility toward rivals is a classless activity, and if you're doing that, fine. It'll be viewed as such. However, it's accurately and relevantly labeled as hypocrisy when a party hides behind a false claim of principles.
- ftxbro 3y ago
  I don't know, isn't claiming a principle just another tool in a rhetoric kit? In the boxing analogy are you saying it would be like an illegal boxing move like biting ear or low blow? If that's the case then I think the rules have changed in public rhetoric to allow claiming a principle for rhetorically expedient purposes.
  - mullingitover 3y ago
    If you're claiming something as a principle, when in reality it means nothing to you but empty rhetoric, you are by definition a fraud. Politicians do this all the time, and it's a fundamental part of why people hate politicians.
    - ftxbro 3y ago
      > If you're claiming something as a principle, when in reality it means nothing to you but empty rhetoric, you are by definition a fraud. Nah, that's what I'm claiming has changed. It's now acceptable to hypocritically invoke principles as part of a conflict of interests. Maybe it used to be considered as shameful or fraudulent but not anymore. I think what has really changed is that societies have become more zero-sum, so undisguised shameless conflict of interests is more normalized.
      - mullingitover 3y ago
        I wouldn't say it's acceptable as a universal fact. It boils down to the fact that a subset of extremely partisan voters feel the need to rationalize being fans of politicians who are brazen frauds, and not just voting for them because they represent their will on certain key issues. Not everyone does this.

by ftxbro 3y ago

mullingitover 3y ago

I think it's still relevant when the hypocrite is claiming that they have a principle, an unambiguous matter of right and wrong. Unprincipled hostility toward rivals is a classless activity, and if you're doing that, fine. It'll be viewed as such. However, it's accurately and relevantly labeled as hypocrisy when a party hides behind a false claim of principles.

ftxbro 3y ago
I don't know, isn't claiming a principle just another tool in a rhetoric kit? In the boxing analogy are you saying it would be like an illegal boxing move like biting ear or low blow? If that's the case then I think the rules have changed in public rhetoric to allow claiming a principle for rhetorically expedient purposes.
- mullingitover 3y ago
  If you're claiming something as a principle, when in reality it means nothing to you but empty rhetoric, you are by definition a fraud. Politicians do this all the time, and it's a fundamental part of why people hate politicians.
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    > If you're claiming something as a principle, when in reality it means nothing to you but empty rhetoric, you are by definition a fraud. Nah, that's what I'm claiming has changed. It's now acceptable to hypocritically invoke principles as part of a conflict of interests. Maybe it used to be considered as shameful or fraudulent but not anymore. I think what has really changed is that societies have become more zero-sum, so undisguised shameless conflict of interests is more normalized.
    - mullingitover 3y ago
      I wouldn't say it's acceptable as a universal fact. It boils down to the fact that a subset of extremely partisan voters feel the need to rationalize being fans of politicians who are brazen frauds, and not just voting for them because they represent their will on certain key issues. Not everyone does this.