4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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.