What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hypocrisy. Can We Talk? (1 Viewer)

2nd article is cherry picked from a point in time where two female members of the administration left to goon to bigger and better things

1st article - nobody’s perfect, but this is also a hot button political issue where people should be able to disagree and not be called a sexist 

I could just as easily point out how sexual harassment was rampant in the EPA and FBI under Obama and the administration looked the other way....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2nd article is cherry picked from a point in time where two female members of the administration left to goon to bigger and better things

1st article - nobody’s perfect, but this is also a hot button political issue where people should be able to disagree and not be called a sexist 

I could just as easily point out how sexual harassment was rampant in the EPA and FBI under Obama and the administration looked the other way....
Nobody's perfect, amirite?

 
With all due respect I absolutely think ‘hypocrisy’ is one of the worst buzzwords for deflection in modern politics. It results in nullification of everything and nihilism in every discussion.

Please just speak in positive values. What do you believe in, why, and how is that evident in what’s going on. 
That's what bothers me the most about it. It's a content-free way to poke holes in someone's argument without being forced to actually address the substance.

My go-to example -- I'm pretty sure I've posted this in multiple threads over the years, so apologies if you've heard it before -- is the accusations of hypocrisy thrown at environmentalists like Al Gore for flying on airplanes or living in homes. If you're judging everyone solely in terms of  hypocrisy, then that automatically makes Gore worse than, say, the Koch brothers, who are at least "consistent" in downplaying the significance of climate change while also spending gobs of money to ensure our political system doesn't do anything about it. But if you actually engage with the substance of the issue and believe (as nearly all scientists do) that CC represents an existential threat to the human race, then the Kochs are by no means "better" than Gore, they are orders of magnitude worse.

Avoiding taking positions on these types of issues benefits a) partisans who might not want to engage on issues where they're clearly out of step with public opinion and/or reality, and b) the media, which wants to avoid accusations of bias but has no problem offering opinions on "process" arguments like whether someone is being hypocritical.

 
I mean you don't have to be upset by it, but any way you slice it, it's clearly hypocritical.

We all heard him talking about grabbing you-know-whats.

If you want to support him after that, fine. But you don't get to play the "family values" card anymore.
See, this is a small example of what I was getting at in my previous post. I don't think it's fine. I think it's horrendous that people could still support him after hearing that tape. Period. Full stop.

Not trying to single you out. People say stuff like that all the time. But IMO supporting someone who would say those things is bad whether you claim to support family values or not. 

 
See, this is a small example of what I was getting at in my previous post. I don't think it's fine. I think it's horrendous that people could still support him after hearing that tape. Period. Full stop.

Not trying to single you out. People say stuff like that all the time. But IMO supporting someone who would say those things is bad whether you claim to support family values or not. 
It's ok, I don't think it's fine either.

I was trying to say that supporting Trump is one thing, the complaining about others who do the same or far less than Trump is what makes one a hypocrite.

Should've replaced "fine" with "that's up to you".

 
That's what bothers me the most about it. It's a content-free way to poke holes in someone's argument without being forced to actually address the substance.

My go-to example -- I'm pretty sure I've posted this in multiple threads over the years, so apologies if you've heard it before -- is the accusations of hypocrisy thrown at environmentalists like Al Gore for flying on airplanes or living in homes. If you're judging everyone solely in terms of  hypocrisy, then that automatically makes Gore worse than, say, the Koch brothers, who are at least "consistent" in downplaying the significance of climate change while also spending gobs of money to ensure our political system doesn't do anything about it. But if you actually engage with the substance of the issue and believe (as nearly all scientists do) that CC represents an existential threat to the human race, then the Kochs are by no means "better" than Gore, they are orders of magnitude worse.

Avoiding taking positions on these types of issues benefits a) partisans who might not want to engage on issues where they're clearly out of step with public opinion and/or reality, and b) the media, which wants to avoid accusations of bias but has no problem offering opinions on "process" arguments like whether someone is being hypocritical.
I don't have any problems with somebody telling Al Gore to piss off about climate change or any other politician that preaches about changing things that they themselves do.

I also don't have to listen to proponents of those politicians using their public positions on subjects to prop up said candidates.

What wouldn't be fair is if you and I were having a discussion about climate change and I used Al Gore's huge house as a way to shout you down. 

 
I don't have any problems with somebody telling Al Gore to piss off about climate change or any other politician that preaches about changing things that they themselves do.

I also don't have to listen to proponents of those politicians using their public positions on subjects to prop up said candidates.

What wouldn't be fair is if you and I were having a discussion about climate change and I used Al Gore's huge house as a way to shout you down. 
I think we're in agreement. Yes, Gore should be subject to criticism if he's not practicing what he preaches. What bothers me is a) as you say, people often use that as an excuse to avoid discussing the underlying issue, and b) we so fetishize intellectual consistency that we treat what Gore is doing as worse than what the Kochs are doing. Gore is bad, but the Kochs are way, way worse.

 
Nobody's perfect, amirite?
I don’t see how it’s hypocritical for Franklin Graham to support an imperfect man, who is trying to advance policy that he and those of a similar mindset support, when one of he and his supporters core beliefs is that ALL people are imperfect, while simultaneously speaking out against cultural messages that push society towards things that run counter to his beliefs. 

 
Nobody's perfect, amirite?
I don’t see how it’s hypocritical for Franklin Graham to support an imperfect man, who is trying to advance policy that he and those of a similar mindset support, when one of he and his supporters core beliefs is that ALL people are imperfect, while simultaneously speaking out against cultural messages that push society towards things that run counter to his beliefs. 
I agree with this take.

Franklin Graham may be many things -- self-centered, greedy, a charlatan, a con artist, a dirtbag, etc. -- but that doesn't mean that he's a hypocrite.

 
With all due respect I absolutely think ‘hypocrisy’ is one of the worst buzzwords for deflection in modern politics. It results in nullification of everything and nihilism in every discussion.

Please just speak in positive values. What do you believe in, why, and how is that evident in what’s going on. 
A billion times this :goodposting:

Not only deflection, but for generalizations.  Take a view high enough and everything looks the same and if you don't act the same way from a 10,000 foot perspective you're a hypocrite.  Look no further than the killing of Iranian leadership as a very current, obvious example of this.

 
I don’t see how it’s hypocritical for Franklin Graham to support an imperfect man, who is trying to advance policy that he and those of a similar mindset support, when one of he and his supporters core beliefs is that ALL people are imperfect, while simultaneously speaking out against cultural messages that push society towards things that run counter to his beliefs. 
Curious, what's the cultural message sent when someone supports a guy that claims he "grabs 'em by the %$#^" to be President of the United States?

Isn't Graham sending the message that that kind of behavior is not only acceptable, but worthy of the President?

 
Curious, what's the cultural message sent when someone supports a guy that claims he "grabs 'em by the %$#^" to be President of the United States?

Isn't Graham sending the message that that kind of behavior is not only acceptable, but worthy of the President?
Trump apologized for saying that and is not promoting that people “just grab em by the ####”

 
I always thought politics was about compromises. But it really is all about hypocrisy.  And supporting “your” side..

 
Can we talk now?

Three Kushner family enterprises received PPP loans, so did the Daily Caller, Newsmax, Grover Norquist, and David Bossie. Millions of taxpayer dollars funneled directly to Trump family and political interests.

 
urbanhack said:
Can we talk now?

Three Kushner family enterprises received PPP loans, so did the Daily Caller, Newsmax, Grover Norquist, and David Bossie. Millions of taxpayer dollars funneled directly to Trump family and political interests.
Isnt this why we needed oversight?  

 
In a nutshell, it's about world view.  The end justifies the means for both "sides" in our country.  When you think the other side in completely missing the point, you overlook things on your side......the media, and constant propoganda we are fed only widens the gap.

 
In a nutshell, it's about world view.  The end justifies the means for both "sides" in our country.  When you think the other side in completely missing the point, you overlook things on your side......the media, and constant propoganda we are fed only widens the gap.
Not quite though...Biden's former firm...of which he has no interest.  And he has zero power.

Comparable to Kushner family businesses?  

 
urbanhack said:
Can we talk now?

Three Kushner family enterprises received PPP loans, so did the Daily Caller, Newsmax, Grover Norquist, and David Bossie. Millions of taxpayer dollars funneled directly to Trump family and political interests.
Good call. Democrats don't have any political interests at all.  It's almost like they're angelic with how they behave themselves.  They don't give money or get money at all. They're always honest.

I think the title of this threat is perfect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again Kushner family owned businesses vs a 1971 law firm connection and one of a million companies Pelosi's husband has an investment in.

This is the equivalency you're trying to draw?  And it was Trump's admin who refused over site.

There's no spinning this blatant corruption. 


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/06/media-matters-took-in-up-to-2-million-in-small-business-relief-loans/

All sides that had connections got to get first slops from the troughs.   I know I know <insert banned 3 letter acronym>

 
Call me crazy but given the current economic climate, I have no issues with ANY company that took PPP money in order to keep people employed. No matter who they are tied to.

 
urbanhack said:
Can we talk now?

Three Kushner family enterprises received PPP loans, so did the Daily Caller, Newsmax, Grover Norquist, and David Bossie. Millions of taxpayer dollars funneled directly to Trump family and political interests.
So?  

 
Again Kushner family owned businesses vs a 1971 law firm connection and one of a million companies Pelosi's husband has an investment in.

This is the equivalency you're trying to draw?  And it was Trump's admin who refused over site.

There's no spinning this blatant corruption. 
So there is evidence they did not qualify for these loans but received them anyways?

 
A lot of small businesses either didn’t get loans or had significant delays in getting the money. These businesses may go out of business if they don’t get the loans, is the same true about the big politically connected ones?

Of course they need it but don’t you think it would be better if all the small businesses were taken care of first? I’d rather have the small businesses taken care of and have a smaller total amount used so that a second bill is a possibility for states that have to shut down again.

 
It's supposed to be about ***Payroll*** Protection. - I don't know where the hypocrisy comes in except that either "side" will be able to find abuse by the other side, so claiming this is abuse by one party or the other will bound to be met with howls. The real problem is the lack of oversight by the administration and the fact they tried to hide these results from becoming public in the first place. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's supposed to be about ***Payroll*** Protection. - I don't know where the hypocrisy comes in except that either "side" will be able to find abuse by the other side, so claiming this is abuse by one party or the other will bound to be met with howls. The real problem is the lack of oversight by the administration and the fact they tried to hide these results from becoming public in the first place. 
This is spot on.

 
A lot of small businesses either didn’t get loans or had significant delays in getting the money. These businesses may go out of business if they don’t get the loans, is the same true about the big politically connected ones?

Of course they need it but don’t you think it would be better if all the small businesses were taken care of first? I’d rather have the small businesses taken care of and have a smaller total amount used so that a second bill is a possibility for states that have to shut down again.
So take it up with the people who created the program.

 
Again, so?  

I oppose Social Security.  I would be significantly wealthier today if I had been allowed to opt-out when I was in my 20s and wished to do so.  I would like to give my children the ability to opt out.  But being stuck in a world that forces me to contribute to a negative-real-return pension system, I'm going to cash my Social Security check without remorse.  What's the problem?

 
Again, so?  

I oppose Social Security.  I would be significantly wealthier today if I had been allowed to opt-out when I was in my 20s and wished to do so.  I would like to give my children the ability to opt out.  But being stuck in a world that forces me to contribute to a negative-real-return pension system, I'm going to cash my Social Security check without remorse.  What's the problem?
Opting out of SS for most people is a terrible idea.  I'll bet if you run the numbers you'll find that your return is pretty close to historical market returns. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top