13 ms·

Taking advantage of the existing situation for maximum personal gain doesn't indicate doublethink. It only indicates that they care more about themselves than t

by MadManE 13y ago

Taking advantage of the existing situation for maximum personal gain doesn't indicate doublethink. It only indicates that they care more about themselves than they care about "the greater good" - which, in my opinion is how it should be. Somebody's going to be getting paid for doing nothing - it might as well be me.

pseut 13y ago
But then don't bitch about it.
Jtsummers 13y ago
It's doublethink or hypocrisy to complain about people getting fat off the government dole while getting fat off the government dole.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  If someone is going to get paid it might as well be me. People that support positions only because they personally benefit or who can't change their minds because it would cost them, are far more worrying. As another comment pointed out, those people have a personal stake in the issue. Accepting they are wrong has an actual cost to them.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. If you worked for the TSA, you would also have sworn an oath to the Constitution. > It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in. So, some people who have sworn an oath to the Constitution should optimize their personal income even when that means benefitting from things they see as a contrary to the Constitution, while others shouldn't?
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Bad example on my part, perhaps. I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. I agree that in the example I gave, that would be hypocritical. I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. Contractors don't. > I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat. Its not necessarily incoherent (but, still, IMO, somewhat odd) to argue that it is immoral to choose to benefit from violations of the Constitution only if you have sworn a special oath. That argument isn't about the Constitution, just the binding nature of oaths.
        bmelton 13y ago
        It's just on the topic of hypocrisy. Feeling one way and doing another is kind of a default in the human condition, and is often required for success. The oath of office is perhaps a thinner line than I'm making it out to be, but there's a larger point to be made there about the role of the federal government, the incentives of office, etc. That said, I'm high (low?) on Valium at the moment, so I'm in no shape to argue it at the moment.
- crazy1van 13y ago
  If they argued for bigger government because it directly benefits them, they'd be criticized for that too.
- prostoalex 13y ago
  How does one gain a first-hand knowledge of a corrupt system unless one has experienced it himself? It's quite possible to be the user of the system due to the lack of other alternatives and oppose it in principle. People with mortgages or shares do not necessarily support corrupt Wall Street practices and financial institutions getting "too big to fail", yet benefit from low mortgage rates or bullish runs in the stock market.
  - bane 13y ago
    It turns out experiential knowledge is not the only way we can learn things.
    - prostoalex 13y ago
      Why have the silly laws protecting the whistle-blowers then?
- smsm42 13y ago
  The complaint is about the system that allows to do that. While the system is in place, somebody's going to be the beneficiary. If the system were to be destroyed, then nobody - including the people complaining - would get fat off it. It's like if you just took your money out of your wallet and threw it on the street, I'd tell you it's not a sound financial behavior. Would then it be hypocritical for me to take some of that money laying in the street? I personally would be reluctant to work for government unless having no other option, but I understand people who do while still thinking government should be less invasive.
- baddox 13y ago
  So am I a bad person for advocating exercise and a healthy diet despite generally failing to observe my own recommendation?
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    Not at all, that's only loosely comparable. To really make it a fair comparison: You'd be a bad person if you thought that obesity was a sign of moral failings, and looked down on those people. All while stuffing your face with your third cake of the day, washing it down with your second liter of coke. If, in that situation, you couldn't recognize yourself as obese and consequently suffering from the same "moral failings" as those you denounce, then you'd be a hypocrite or engaged in doublethink.
    - baddox 13y ago
      Ok, so exercise and diet generally isn't a moral issue these days (sloth and gluttony aside). So what about things that are widely considered virtuous, like keeping promises and appointments, being honest/genuine, not being selfish, not being a dick, etc.? I fail at those things a lot as well, but still consider violations to not be virtuous. Perhaps I don't actually look down on people (at least until they make those violations their norm), but I would still advocate these virtues despite failing at them myself.
      - Jtsummers 13y ago
        Do you acknowledge that it's a personal failing of yours even when you also find it undesirable in others? Then you're being at least somewhat fair and reasonable. Do you shun others when they fail at it? Do you respond poorly when someone calls you out for having the same problems? Then you're somewhere in that hypocrisy/doublethink territory. (from what you've written it sounds like you're in the first group, not the second.) It's really a lot about the degree and self-awareness of the individual. A federal employee is not a hypocrite for wanting smaller government. A federal employee is a hypocrite/doublethinker for failing to acknowledge that they want a smaller government, their program is too large or wasteful (F-35!) and that they should be affected by cuts.
cairnsh 13y ago
JTSummers: I don't think it's doublethink to complain about a situation you personally benefit from. (Actually, it gives you more credibility, because you have a personal stake in the problem: You yourself would be hurt by the change you propose.) But it is doublethink if you hold other people in contempt for getting benefits from tax revenue, or if you think they are immoral for doing so. For example, I think Ayn Rand's position was not just that "looting" is bad for the country, but that it is immoral and that doing it makes you a bad person. A Randite who made special efforts to get any kind of money from the government would either have to think of themselves as a looter, or make a special exception for themselves.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Ayn Rand withdrew Social Security checks (to get back what the government took.) There is nothing necessarily wrong with that.
  - rosser 13y ago
    When you claim Social Security money, you aren't "getting back" what you put in/was "taken" from you. Your contribution is already gone, disbursed to current recipients. When you ultimately collect, that money is similarly coming out of someone else's pocket.
    - rsanders 13y ago
      You never get your money back out of a bank; you get somebody else's money, if there ever even was physical money involved. And you never step in the same river twice. I think that's all splitting metaphysical hairs.
      - rosser 13y ago
        In this case, it's actually not hair-splitting; see my reply to your comment's sibling. You both demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how Social Security works.
wnevets 13y ago
Murder is terrible brb gotta murder someone.

by MadManE 13y ago

pseut 13y ago

But then don't bitch about it.

Jtsummers 13y ago

It's doublethink or hypocrisy to complain about people getting fat off the government dole while getting fat off the government dole.

Houshalter 13y ago
If someone is going to get paid it might as well be me. People that support positions only because they personally benefit or who can't change their minds because it would cost them, are far more worrying. As another comment pointed out, those people have a personal stake in the issue. Accepting they are wrong has an actual cost to them.
bmelton 13y ago
Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. If you worked for the TSA, you would also have sworn an oath to the Constitution. > It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in. So, some people who have sworn an oath to the Constitution should optimize their personal income even when that means benefitting from things they see as a contrary to the Constitution, while others shouldn't?
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Bad example on my part, perhaps. I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. I agree that in the example I gave, that would be hypocritical. I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. Contractors don't. > I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat. Its not necessarily incoherent (but, still, IMO, somewhat odd) to argue that it is immoral to choose to benefit from violations of the Constitution only if you have sworn a special oath. That argument isn't about the Constitution, just the binding nature of oaths.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        It's just on the topic of hypocrisy. Feeling one way and doing another is kind of a default in the human condition, and is often required for success. The oath of office is perhaps a thinner line than I'm making it out to be, but there's a larger point to be made there about the role of the federal government, the incentives of office, etc. That said, I'm high (low?) on Valium at the moment, so I'm in no shape to argue it at the moment.
crazy1van 13y ago
If they argued for bigger government because it directly benefits them, they'd be criticized for that too.
prostoalex 13y ago
How does one gain a first-hand knowledge of a corrupt system unless one has experienced it himself? It's quite possible to be the user of the system due to the lack of other alternatives and oppose it in principle. People with mortgages or shares do not necessarily support corrupt Wall Street practices and financial institutions getting "too big to fail", yet benefit from low mortgage rates or bullish runs in the stock market.
- bane 13y ago
  It turns out experiential knowledge is not the only way we can learn things.
  - prostoalex 13y ago
    Why have the silly laws protecting the whistle-blowers then?
smsm42 13y ago
The complaint is about the system that allows to do that. While the system is in place, somebody's going to be the beneficiary. If the system were to be destroyed, then nobody - including the people complaining - would get fat off it. It's like if you just took your money out of your wallet and threw it on the street, I'd tell you it's not a sound financial behavior. Would then it be hypocritical for me to take some of that money laying in the street? I personally would be reluctant to work for government unless having no other option, but I understand people who do while still thinking government should be less invasive.
baddox 13y ago
So am I a bad person for advocating exercise and a healthy diet despite generally failing to observe my own recommendation?
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  Not at all, that's only loosely comparable. To really make it a fair comparison: You'd be a bad person if you thought that obesity was a sign of moral failings, and looked down on those people. All while stuffing your face with your third cake of the day, washing it down with your second liter of coke. If, in that situation, you couldn't recognize yourself as obese and consequently suffering from the same "moral failings" as those you denounce, then you'd be a hypocrite or engaged in doublethink.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Ok, so exercise and diet generally isn't a moral issue these days (sloth and gluttony aside). So what about things that are widely considered virtuous, like keeping promises and appointments, being honest/genuine, not being selfish, not being a dick, etc.? I fail at those things a lot as well, but still consider violations to not be virtuous. Perhaps I don't actually look down on people (at least until they make those violations their norm), but I would still advocate these virtues despite failing at them myself.
    - Jtsummers 13y ago
      Do you acknowledge that it's a personal failing of yours even when you also find it undesirable in others? Then you're being at least somewhat fair and reasonable. Do you shun others when they fail at it? Do you respond poorly when someone calls you out for having the same problems? Then you're somewhere in that hypocrisy/doublethink territory. (from what you've written it sounds like you're in the first group, not the second.) It's really a lot about the degree and self-awareness of the individual. A federal employee is not a hypocrite for wanting smaller government. A federal employee is a hypocrite/doublethinker for failing to acknowledge that they want a smaller government, their program is too large or wasteful (F-35!) and that they should be affected by cuts.

cairnsh 13y ago

JTSummers: I don't think it's doublethink to complain about a situation you personally benefit from. (Actually, it gives you more credibility, because you have a personal stake in the problem: You yourself would be hurt by the change you propose.) But it is doublethink if you hold other people in contempt for getting benefits from tax revenue, or if you think they are immoral for doing so. For example, I think Ayn Rand's position was not just that "looting" is bad for the country, but that it is immoral and that doing it makes you a bad person. A Randite who made special efforts to get any kind of money from the government would either have to think of themselves as a looter, or make a special exception for themselves.

Houshalter 13y ago
Ayn Rand withdrew Social Security checks (to get back what the government took.) There is nothing necessarily wrong with that.
- rosser 13y ago
  When you claim Social Security money, you aren't "getting back" what you put in/was "taken" from you. Your contribution is already gone, disbursed to current recipients. When you ultimately collect, that money is similarly coming out of someone else's pocket.
  - rsanders 13y ago
    You never get your money back out of a bank; you get somebody else's money, if there ever even was physical money involved. And you never step in the same river twice. I think that's all splitting metaphysical hairs.
    - rosser 13y ago
      In this case, it's actually not hair-splitting; see my reply to your comment's sibling. You both demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how Social Security works.

wnevets 13y ago

Murder is terrible brb gotta murder someone.