Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Joe Bryant

Hypocrisy. Can We Talk?

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this belongs in the hypocrisy thread, but can someone explain to me why some of the same people who self-identify as "patriots" are vehemently defending monuments of traitors to this country?   

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

I don't know if this belongs in the hypocrisy thread, but can someone explain to me why some of the same people who self-identify as "patriots" are vehemently defending monuments of traitors to this country?   

Because they have swallowed the revisionist history that the Civil War was about states' rights.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Captain Cranks said:

I don't know if this belongs in the hypocrisy thread, but can someone explain to me why some of the same people who self-identify as "patriots" are vehemently defending monuments of traitors to this country?   

Being a traitor has long been a capital offense. People have gone to the electric chair over this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/7/2020 at 11:02 AM, Captain Cranks said:

I don't know if this belongs in the hypocrisy thread, but can someone explain to me why some of the same people who self-identify as "patriots" are vehemently defending monuments of traitors to this country?   

People here seem to have a problem with the putting things into context.

This all occurred in a time when loyalty to one's state, trumped any loyalty to a single nation.

At the time, we were referred to as, "These United States"....not "The United States".

Perspective makes a big difference when passing judgment on someone who lived in another time.

 

Edited by Opie
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Opie said:

People here seem to have a problem with the putting things into context.

This all occurred in a time when loyalty to one's state, trumped any loyalty to a single nation.

At the time, we were referred to as, "These United States"....not "The United States".

Perspective makes a big difference when passing judgment on someone who lived in another time.

 

that's all well and good man, and I very much agree that we need to judge historical figures using the context of their period in history versus through our own modern lens. But when it comes down to it, the Confederate States were created and fought a war with the intention of destroying the United States as a nation to keep their right to own slaves. If people want to put up statues or monuments for them on private land, cool, but I don't think they should be honored like that at US government buildings or municipal spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If that's your take away from history....it's all yours.

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Opie said:

People here seem to have a problem with the putting things into context.

This all occurred in a time when loyalty to one's state, trumped any loyalty to a single nation.

At the time, we were referred to as, "These United States"....not "The United States".

Perspective makes a big difference when passing judgment on someone who lived in another time.

 

Your information is wrong. 
Nearly all of the monuments you’re referring to were put up well AFTER the Civil War was over. Most of them were put up for the purpose of expressing white superiority and Jim Crow. If you’re going to claim to study history, then it’s wise to be accurate. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Your information is wrong. 
Nearly all of the monuments you’re referring to were put up well AFTER the Civil War was over. Most of them were put up for the purpose of expressing white superiority and Jim Crow. If you’re going to claim to study history, then it’s wise to be accurate. 

Correct.  It's not as though all of these statues have been around since the 1800s.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/8/2020 at 8:59 PM, timschochet said:

Your information is wrong. 
Nearly all of the monuments you’re referring to were put up well AFTER the Civil War was over. Most of them were put up for the purpose of expressing white superiority and Jim Crow. If you’re going to claim to study history, then it’s wise to be accurate. 

You have totally ignored what we were talking about.

Cranks said......

On 7/8/2020 at 5:55 PM, Opie said:

People here seem to have a problem with the putting things into context.

This all occurred in a time when loyalty to one's state, trumped any loyalty to a single nation.

At the time, we were referred to as, "These United States"....not "The United States".

Perspective makes a big difference when passing judgment on someone who lived in another time.

I replied.....

On 7/7/2020 at 11:02 AM, Captain Cranks said:

I don't know if this belongs in the hypocrisy thread, but can someone explain to me why some of the same people who self-identify as "patriots" are vehemently defending monuments of traitors to this country?  

Cranks accused that these statues depicted as "traitors to this country".

"This country" barely existed and did not exist over the State in the minds of the time.
 They lived in a time where loyalty to one's state trumped their loyalty do the country.
The country was secondary to the state during this period of time....thus, "These united states" as opposed to "The United States".

They were not "traitors" to the US, they were loyal to their state....as the times dictated.

They were simply following orders (as soldiers do) that were issued by the Democrats of the South who actually went to war to keep slavery alive.

If there were any traitors during the 1860s...it was the Democrat leaders at the time.

Now...WHY these statues were erected is totally debatable.

Edited by Opie
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, @Captain Cranks post mentioned no political affiliation which is smart as it doesn't matter.  The actions these people took were those of traitors.  That fact remains true whether they were Republicans or Democrats.  His question is still valid.

Also don't understand the "just following orders" shtick either...well over 90% of the "soldiers" were volunteers who actively decided to go fight to protect slavery rendering "just following orders" hollow.  

Of course NONE of this answers his questions of why, so many years later, they erected the statues of traitors and people continue to fight for them to be displayed with pride throughout local municipalities.  It's probably one of the better questions on this board, which is why (I'm guessing) it seems to be so difficult for those clamoring to keep them to answer.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

FWIW, @Captain Cranks post mentioned no political affiliation which is smart as it doesn't matter.  The actions these people took were those of traitors.  That fact remains true whether they were Republicans or Democrats.  His question is still valid.

Also don't understand the "just following orders" shtick either...well over 90% of the "soldiers" were volunteers who actively decided to go fight to protect slavery rendering "just following orders" hollow.  

Of course NONE of this answers his questions of why, so many years later, they erected the statues of traitors and people continue to fight for them to be displayed with pride throughout local municipalities.  It's probably one of the better questions on this board, which is why (I'm guessing) it seems to be so difficult for those clamoring to keep them to answer.

The statues were erected to honor people that were viewed as heros in their local communities.  Please provide a link that supports your comment that the volunteers joined to protect slavery.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, stlrams said:

The statues were erected to honor people that were viewed as heros in their local communities.  Please provide a link that supports your comment that the volunteers joined to protect slavery.  

I significant number of the statues were erected during the civil rights era, which also coincided with many of the southern states integrating the confederate flag into their state flag around the same time. Why do you think they chose that timing to go all in on confederate imagery? Could there be some sort of link between an increasingly public veneration of the confederacy and black people demanding rights?

Edited by huthut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, huthut said:

I significant number of the statues were erected during the civil rights era, which also coincided with many of the southern states integrating the confederate flag into their state flag around the same time. Why do you think they chose that timing to go all in on confederate imagery? Could there be some sort of link between an increasingly public veneration of the confederacy and black people demanding rights?

Please support your theory that significant number of statues were erected disputing civil right era with facts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Please support your theory that significant number of statues were erected disputing civil right era with facts.  

You are correct in that the civil rights era was only the second largest wave of confederate statues (though it is when the confederate flag became prominent). The bulk of statues were built during the formation of Jim Crow laws and such in the early 1900s. Either way both waves were done with the purpose of showing black people which side of the issue the local white people were on. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monuments-backlash-chart-trnd/index.html

Edited by huthut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

FWIW, @Captain Cranks post mentioned no political affiliation which is smart as it doesn't matter.  The actions these people took were those of traitors.  That fact remains true whether they were Republicans or Democrats.  His question is still valid.

Also don't understand the "just following orders" shtick either...well over 90% of the "soldiers" were volunteers who actively decided to go fight to protect slavery rendering "just following orders" hollow.  

Of course NONE of this answers his questions of why, so many years later, they erected the statues of traitors and people continue to fight for them to be displayed with pride throughout local municipalities.  It's probably one of the better questions on this board, which is why (I'm guessing) it seems to be so difficult for those clamoring to keep them to answer.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that very many of those Southern soldiers had enough money to own slaves and most likely, did not care one way or another if slavery stuck around or not.
I am sure that most of the rank and file "volunteered" or were "voluntold" by Southern Democrats to defend the sovereignty of their state.

And there was the Southern Conscription Act of 1862 which began with a max age of 35 year old and three years of service, was altered to include those conscripted to 45 years of age, then changed again to include anyone between the ages of 17-50 for an unlimited term of service. Why would that be needed if 90% of those fighting for the South were volunteers?

I call total :bs: on that claim.

Most of of the statues erected were of Southern Generals, many of whom were either graduates of, or attending West Point when war was declared by the Democrats during a time when loyalty to one's state was paramount.

 

Edited by Opie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Opie said:

and most likely, did not care one way or another if slavery stuck around or not.

Now that’s a trick!  Not only are you claiming to know how hundreds of thousands of people felt you’re claiming to know how hundreds of thousands of people felt 160 years ago that’s in direct conflict with their actions.  Impressive my friend, impressive.  

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stlrams said:

The statues were erected to honor people that were viewed as heros in their local communities.  Please provide a link that supports your comment that the volunteers joined to protect slavery.  

Sure...decades later during some pretty troubling times...coincidence I'm sure.  I'm not getting into the "states rights vs slavery" stuff....it's pretty clear that would be a fruitless effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Opie said:

I SERIOUSLY doubt that very many of those Southern soldiers had enough money to own slaves and most likely, did not care one way or another if slavery stuck around or not.
I am sure that most of the rank and file "volunteered" or were "voluntold" by Southern Democrats to defend the sovereignty of their state.

And there was the Southern Conscription Act of 1862 which began with a max age of 35 year old and three years of service, was altered to include those conscripted to 45 years of age, then changed again to include anyone between the ages of 17-50 for an unlimited term of service. Why would that be needed if 90% of those fighting for the South were volunteers?

I call total :bs: on that claim.

Most of of the statues erected were of Southern Generals, many of whom were either graduates of, or attending West Point when war was declared by the Democrats during a time when loyalty to one's state was paramount.

 

Fish someone else...CC's question is still a valid one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, huthut said:

You are correct in that the civil rights era was only the second largest wave of confederate statues (though it is when the confederate flag became prominent). The bulk of statues were built during the formation of Jim Crow laws and such in the early 1900s. Either way both waves were done with the purpose of showing black people which side of the issue the local white people were on. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monuments-backlash-chart-trnd/index.html

The purpose of statute erection is highly debatable imo.  Therefore, Absolutes should not be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 5:55 PM, Opie said:

People here seem to have a problem with the putting things into context.

This all occurred in a time when loyalty to one's state, trumped any loyalty to a single nation.

At the time, we were referred to as, "These United States"....not "The United States".

Perspective makes a big difference when passing judgment on someone who lived in another time.

 

The Constitution as written at that time referred to citizens of the states and citizens of the nation, but never clarified between the two. States were much more empowered than now. What you are saying is correct. If your state called you to service you went. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jerseydevil20 said:

The Constitution as written at that time referred to citizens of the states and citizens of the nation, but never clarified between the two. States were much more empowered than now. What you are saying is correct. If your state called you to service you went. 

It also treated certain citizens as less than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else hate it when both @dkp993 and @stlrams are posting in the same thread? They have mostly opposite political views, but because of dkp's avatar I'm constantly getting them mixed up. Craziest part is that I'm pretty sure that's an LA Rams logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 1:02 PM, Captain Cranks said:

I don't know if this belongs in the hypocrisy thread, but can someone explain to me why some of the same people who self-identify as "patriots" are vehemently defending monuments of traitors to this country?   

This goes back to what I was saying way earlier in this thread about hypocrisy. I'm a lot more bothered by the fact that people are supporting traitors, and also by the fact that this has been a widely accepted position in this country for a very long time. I would feel that way no matter how much they talked about patriotism or what any of their other political positions were. It's plenty bad enough on its own terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Anyone else hate it when both @dkp993 and @stlrams are posting in the same thread? They have mostly opposite political views, but because of dkp's avatar I'm constantly getting them mixed up. Craziest part is that I'm pretty sure that's an LA Rams logo.

Lol. Sorry GB, don’t mean to confuse ya.  Just remember I’m the sensible one. 😉

*it is the LA logo.  Life long Rams fan, all the way back to the first LA stint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Opie said:

I SERIOUSLY doubt that very many of those Southern soldiers had enough money to own slaves and most likely, did not care one way or another if slavery stuck around or not.
I am sure that most of the rank and file "volunteered" or were "voluntold" by Southern Democrats to defend the sovereignty of their state.

And there was the Southern Conscription Act of 1862 which began with a max age of 35 year old and three years of service, was altered to include those conscripted to 45 years of age, then changed again to include anyone between the ages of 17-50 for an unlimited term of service. Why would that be needed if 90% of those fighting for the South were volunteers?

I call total :bs: on that claim.

Most of of the statues erected were of Southern Generals, many of whom were either graduates of, or attending West Point when war was declared by the Democrats during a time when loyalty to one's state was paramount.

 

There's a reason I don't seek out your knowledge on the subject of scurvy.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Lol. Sorry GB, don’t mean to confuse ya.  Just remember I’m the sensible one. 😉

*it is the LA logo.  Life long Rams fan, all the way back to the first LA stint. 

Just to be sure, I'm taking out a restraining order preventing either of you from getting within 50 posts of each other.

About a year ago I meant to tag @The Commish in a post and accidentally left the space out in between the two words. Let me tell you, TheCommish did not seem to appreciate being dragged into a political discussion (which is why I'm not tagging him here). You ever call a wrong number and it instantly becomes clear the person on the other end has had it up to here with other people making the same mistake? It was kind of like that.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stlrams said:

The purpose of statute erection is highly debatable imo.  Therefore, Absolutes should not be used.

They just randomly happen to pop up whenever racial tensions reach a zenith, just a bunch of unlucky coincidences unfairly tarnishing the reputation of confederate supporters. Are there other reasons for so many of the statues and monuments to appear during those two moments, rather than a constant trickle of statues and monuments over time? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sho nuff said:

It also treated certain citizens as less than others.

Ok. Not the point I was making, nor to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Lol. Sorry GB, don’t mean to confuse ya.  Just remember I’m the sensible one. 😉

*it is the LA logo.  Life long Rams fan, all the way back to the first LA stint. 

Same here going back to pat haden days but joined fbg during St. Louis days I think.  If im not sensible then this board is in trouble.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, zftcg said:

Just to be sure, I'm taking out a restraining order preventing either of you from getting within 50 posts of each other.

About a year ago I meant to tag @The Commish in a post and accidentally left the space out in between the two words. Let me tell you, TheCommish did not seem to appreciate being dragged into a political discussion (which is why I'm not tagging him here). You ever call a wrong number and it instantly becomes clear the person on the other end has had it up to here with other people making the same mistake? It was kind of like that.

:lmao:

That's on him GB...been here since the original cheatsheet days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a lot of hypocrisy is "rationalized". Many times I think they are very aware of it.  For example, if a person is accused of some crime or ethical issue, you will tend to be more lenient if you somehow "support" (politics views, acquaintance, admire) that person. If you don't support that person you will tend to think the punishment should be more harsh.  The bottom line, I think people just want to "win" which means aligning with people with similar views/opinions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2020 at 2:01 PM, Phil Elliott said:

It seems a lot of hypocrisy is "rationalized". Many times I think they are very aware of it.  For example, if a person is accused of some crime or ethical issue, you will tend to be more lenient if you somehow "support" (politics views, acquaintance, admire) that person. If you don't support that person you will tend to think the punishment should be more harsh.  The bottom line, I think people just want to "win" which means aligning with people with similar views/opinions. 

 

This is all absolutely true, except for the second sentence.  Based on the conversations I've had here -- this is an unusually well-educated and self-aware community relative to the population at large -- I'm completely convinced that most people have done a great job burying their own inconsistencies.  (I try to avoid using the term "hypocrisy" because that term over-personalizes an extremely common intellectual misfire).  Having seen so many other people who I like and respect seem blind to this sort of thing, I've grown kind of paranoid about my own thinking, and I think I've become more forgiving of this sort of error.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This is all absolutely true, except for the second sentence.  Based on the conversations I've had here -- this is an unusually well-educated and self-aware community relative to the population at large -- I'm completely convinced that most people have done a great job burying their own inconsistencies.  (I try to avoid using the term "hypocrisy" because that term over-personalizes an extremely common intellectual misfire).  Having seen so many other people who I like and respect seem blind to this sort of thing, I've grown kind of paranoid about my own thinking, and I think I've become more forgiving of this sort of error.

I'm definitely aware of it in myself.  There have been a few times where I'll notice an example of hypocrisy by the other side and then realize that same issue can be viewed as hypocritical going the other way.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 10:25 PM, zftcg said:

If your Confederate statue remains erected for more than four decades, call your doctor.

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a couple things about this

1. As Rockaction mentioned, it's really, really hard to have public opinions and not appear to be hypocritical. Sometimes you don't know the details, sometimes your mind changes, sometimes there's nuance people don't understand - just about any public figure who's opined on stuff for a few years is going to be open to some charge of this. 

2. Some people, like Franklin Graham, are far more blatant examples of this than others

3. The fact that #1 is true means that anytime someone is outclassed in a policy debate they can default to talking about other people, and anyone who's like Franklin Graham can manufacture some sort of "well you do it too" about folks they disagree with

4. I think almost every discussion is better off if people don't bring hypocrisy up 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it truly does come down to an honest education.  With so many private schools in the USA and so many people following those paths they are blinded to the realities out side that limited scope.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best hypocrisy is when the person does not even know it:

 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) compares protesters in Portland to "insurrectionists who seceded from the Union in 1861 in South Carolina and tried to take over Fort Sumter," implying that Trump is Lincoln.

 

Aaron Blake@AaronBlake·6m

The Confederate general and insurrectionist who launched the attack on Fort Sumter, P.G.T. Beauregard, has a military camp named after him.

Cotton has opposed renaming such installations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Gator said:

The best hypocrisy is when the person does not even know it:

 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) compares protesters in Portland to "insurrectionists who seceded from the Union in 1861 in South Carolina and tried to take over Fort Sumter," implying that Trump is Lincoln.

 

Aaron Blake@AaronBlake·6m

The Confederate general and insurrectionist who launched the attack on Fort Sumter, P.G.T. Beauregard, has a military camp named after him.

Cotton has opposed renaming such installations.

Why does Cotton oppose renaming? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

She could have saved everyone a lot of time if she just said, "the rules should be whatever is best for Republicans at the time.  Circumstances might change, but the rules should change with them so that the desired outcome for Republicans is the same."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

No she basically just admitted party over country.  Flat out admitting the hypocrisy while trying to excuse it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.