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.

The posts from "the other side" are hypocrites thread AKA The clutching pearls thread (1 Viewer)

jm192

jm192

Footballguy
It seems some posters flock to every thread to minimize discussion of something "their side" did that looks bad.  They quickly point out out "where was this outrage when YOUR SIDE did xyz bad thing?"  And they keep spamming this in each thread in an attempt to derail any discussion about "their side"

Eventually we get into the "I just can't take your pearl clutching seriously lol"  I've heard pearl clutching 1,000 times in my life and every single time it came from someone on this board.  You can't even talk about something the other side did without being called a pearl clutcher.  It's gotten absurd.  

So for those of you that only come to threads to post this kind of stuff:  This is the thread for you.  Post to your heart's content about how "the other side is full of hypocrites."  And please leave it out of EVERY.  SINGLE.  THREAD.  No actual discussion is able to happen because you guys pollute the threads so much with this crap.  So sincerely, please, post it here.

 
jm192 said:
It seems some posters flock to every thread to minimize discussion of something "their side" did that looks bad.  They quickly point out out "where was this outrage when YOUR SIDE did xyz bad thing?"  And they keep spamming this in each thread in an attempt to derail any discussion about "their side"

Eventually we get into the "I just can't take your pearl clutching seriously lol"  I've heard pearl clutching 1,000 times in my life and every single time it came from someone on this board.  You can't even talk about something the other side did without being called a pearl clutcher.  It's gotten absurd.  

So for those of you that only come to threads to post this kind of stuff:  This is the thread for you.  Post to your heart's content about how "the other side is full of hypocrites."  And please leave it out of EVERY.  SINGLE.  THREAD.  No actual discussion is able to happen because you guys pollute the threads so much with this crap.  So sincerely, please, post it here.
Click to expand...
Oh so it was OK when your was doing it but now you have a problem when the other side is!  Where were you in 20__?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a lot of the issue stems from a total lack of humility and self-awareness. They've been consumed by biased media but I'm being objective. Their actions are disgusting but ours are justified. Their politicians are crooked but mine aren't as bad.  

If we were all more willing to admit we exhibit bias and likely give a pass to things that align with our own politics, then we'd probably be more understanding of the "other side".

 
I find whataboutism to be extremely annoying. But there's a difference between the following two scenarios:

Scenario #1.

John: People shouldn't do violent protests about the recent Supreme Court decision.

Sally: What about all those violent protests about the election results, huh?

Scenario #2.

John: People shouldn't do violent protests about the recent Supreme Court decision. Ugh, the left is so bad! They're usually the ones doing this kind of thing.

Sally: Let me point out numerous examples of the right doing this kind of thing, including the violent protests about the election results.

In the first scenario, Sally is doing a whataboutism. She's changing the subject to deflect from John's statement.

In the second scenario, Sally is not changing the subject to deflect from John's statement, but rather she is directly addressing part of John's statement. That's not whataboutism, IMO.

I think the second one seems to better characterize what's going on in the "Extreme Left Threats against Supreme Court" thread.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I find whataboutism to be extremely annoying. But there's a difference between the following two scenarios:

Scenario #1.

John: People shouldn't do violent protests about the recent Supreme Court decision.

Sally: What about all those violent protests about the election results, huh?

Scenario #2.

John: People shouldn't do violent protests about the recent Supreme Court decision. Ugh, the left is so bad! They're usually the ones doing this kind of thing.

Sally: Let me point out numerous examples of the right doing this kind of thing, including the violent protests about the election results.

In the first scenario, Sally is doing a whataboutism. She's changing the subject to deflect from John's statement.

In the second scenario, Sally is not changing the subject to deflect from John's statement, but rather she is directly addressing part of John's statement. That's not whataboutism, IMO.

I think the second one seems to better characterize what's going on in the "Extreme Left Threats against Supreme Court" thread.
Click to expand...
I'll add as I believe some of  @jm192 is directed at me -there's been plenty of harassment and violence over the years by the right specific to this very issue

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Scenario #2.

John: People shouldn't do violent protests about the recent Supreme Court decision. Ugh, the left is so bad! They're usually the ones doing this kind of thing.

Sally: Let me point out numerous examples of the right doing this kind of thing, including the violent protests about the election results.
Click to expand...
I strongly agree with the distinction you're making.  Way too often, people dismiss routine consistency-checks as whataboutism.  But I do think Sally in this conversation has an obligation to say plainly what her point is supposed to be.  Does Sally think that violent protests about the election and violent protests about the Supreme Court decision are both okay?  Does Sally think that they're both bad?  Does Sally think that the one committed by the side she agrees with is okay and the one committed by the other side is not okay? 

I'm about 99% sure that the two posters who inspired this thread belong to that last camp.  The reason why I think that is because they more or less said so directly (e.g. that it's obviously a lot worse to protest at Nancy Pelosi's house than it is to protest at Brett Kavanaugh's house, which is a childish argument).  But it would be nice if we removed the "more or less" part and asked Sally to say what she means.  

 
A little more generally, I find that "willingness to say what you mean" is a very good way to distinguish between people who want to have a conversation and people who are just here to score points.  There's nothing inherently wrong with point-scoring -- the internet is chock full of that activity -- but it's a handy and reliable signal for who to engage with.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I find whataboutism to be extremely annoying. But there's a difference between the following two scenarios:

Scenario #1.

John: People shouldn't do violent protests about the recent Supreme Court decision.

Sally: What about all those violent protests about the election results, huh?

Scenario #2.

John: People shouldn't do violent protests about the recent Supreme Court decision. Ugh, the left is so bad! They're usually the ones doing this kind of thing.

Sally: Let me point out numerous examples of the right doing this kind of thing, including the violent protests about the election results.

In the first scenario, Sally is doing a whataboutism. She's changing the subject to deflect from John's statement.

In the second scenario, Sally is not changing the subject to deflect from John's statement, but rather she is directly addressing part of John's statement. That's not whataboutism, IMO.

I think the second one seems to better characterize what's going on in the "Extreme Left Threats against Supreme Court" thread.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I strongly agree with the distinction you're making.  Way too often, people dismiss routine consistency-checks as whataboutism.  But I do think Sally in this conversation has an obligation to say plainly what her point is supposed to be.
Click to expand...
This right here is my biggest pet peeve about a lot of the arguments here and elsewhere online. All too often, charging "hypocrisy" is, as you say, simply a way to score points rather than to make one. 

That said, I have definitely seen examples where calling out whataboutism becomes its own pose. I have an old high school friend I reconnected with a few years back on Facebook. He's a really smart guy, but his political stance was, best I could tell, two parts libertarian, eight parts professional cynic. Most of his posts were about how both parties were terrible, and he would often draw what I considered to be totally false equivalencies. At first I would engage him on why I thought his analogies were misguided, but ultimately I realized it was pointless. The mere act of my engaging was, in his view, proving his point that I was "blinded by partisanship". And look, I'm self-aware enough to realize that some (many?) of my views that I consider totally rational are probably affected by my biases. But my friend couldn't see that about himself. In his mind, partisanship was the ultimate sin, and he spotted it around every corner.

So yes, there are a##h###s on the left and a##h###s on the right, but if you've convinced yourself that you're the brave truthteller capable of spotting all the a##h###s, well, you may be missing the one staring back at you in the mirror

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
This right here is my biggest pet peeve about a lot of the arguments here and elsewhere online. All too often, charging "hypocrisy" is, as you say, simply a way to score points rather than to make one. 

That said, I have definitely seen examples where calling out whataboutism becomes its own pose. I have an old high school friend I reconnected with a few years back on Facebook. He's a really smart guy, but his political stance was, best I could tell, two parts libertarian, eight parts professional cynic. Most of his posts were about how both parties were terrible, and he would often draw what I considered to be totally false equivalencies. At first I would engage him on why I thought his analogies were misguided, but ultimately I realized it was pointless. The mere act of my engaging was, in his view, proving his point that I was "blinded by partisanship". And look, I'm self-aware enough to realize that some (many?) of my views that I consider totally rational are probably affected by my biases. But my friend couldn't see that about himself. In his mind, partisanship was the ultimate sin, and he spotted it around every corner.

So yes, there are a##h###s on the left and a##h###s on the right, but if you've convinced yourself that you're the brave truthteller capable of spotting all the a##h###s, well, you may be missing the one staring back at you in the mirror
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right.  I think about that a lot.  

 
pearl clutch·ing

noting or relating to someone, especially a woman, who is easily offended or shocked by things the person perceives as vulgar, in bad taste, or morally wrong: pearl-clutching gasps from the audience; pearl-clutching conservatives.
 

I don’t think we’re using the term correctly.

 
I am still stunned that in today's day and age, where anything a politician or party has ever said or did is recorded from 10+ cameras, is on the record and so easily accessible, that we still allow these people to flip flop and double talk their way through their careers. 

I mean it is as plain as day. Take any subject: 
• SCOTUS Nominee process/timing 
• Budget/Debt ceiling
• Job Creation
• Crime
• etc

Each party and party member says exactly the opposite of who is in charge at the time, regardless of their views the last time their party was in power. And we have it all on tape—but no one holds their feet to the fire on it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
glvsav37 said:
I am still stunned that in today's day and age, where anything a politician or party has ever said or did is recorded from 10+ cameras, is on the record and so easily accessible, that we still allow these people to flip flop and double talk their way through their careers. 

I mean it is as plain as day. Take any subject: 
• SCOTUS Nominee process/timing 
• Budget/Debt ceiling
• Job Creation
• Crime
• etc

Each party and party member says exactly the opposite of who is in charge at the time, regardless of their views the last time their party was in power. And we have it all on tape—but no one holds their feet to the fire on it. 
Click to expand...
On the one hand, you're absolutely right. But I think part of it is that we have this weird aversion to just stating what we want, and have to pretend to dress it up in principle.

Take the fights over the past few years over Supreme Court nominations. McConnell and the Republicans wanted to get as many conservatives on the Court as possible. Democrats wanted to prevent that from happening. All the talk about the "Biden precedent" and beliefs about when it was or wasn't appropriate to approve nominations was complete BS. The Republicans had the votes to prevent Garland's confirmation and muscle through ACB's, and so they did it. It was the classic application of the Golden Rule: He with the gold makes the rules.

And yet, as far as I know, not a single Republican ever came out and said that directly, even though it was obvious to everyone that was what was happening. Heck, not even the Democrats came out and said it. Instead, they attacked McConnell as a hypocrite for killing Garland and confirming Coney Barrett. And in one sense, he was (his ridiculous hair-splitting rationale notwithstanding). But if you ignored his rhetoric and simply looked at his actions, he wasn't being hypocritical at all.

And by the way, the logic of "My side has better views and policies, so I want us to win as much as possible" is perfectly defensible. If you think the other side is totally crazy, it's pointless to try to come to an agreement with them on first principles. The only rational move is to beat them into submission (electorally, not literally)

The strongest argument against this line of thinking is that the more everyone adopts this argument, the Trumpier our politics will become. Then again, we're probably heading that way regardless

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Memphis Foundry
  • Locked
  • Sticky
The Politics Forum Is CLOSED.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Memphis Foundry
Memphis Foundry
Joe Bryant
Help Me Understand HR-8 Gun Control Bill
2
Replies
94
Views
2K
sho nuff
sho nuff
AAABatteries
When did the definition of terms stop mattering?
2
Replies
79
Views
2K
jon_mx
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top