Why are right wingers blind to hypocrisy?

[Lint Head]

Here are two examples I have noticed in the last 24 hours.

1.) I saw Kasich, the 'man boy' governor of Ohio, on the morning news spouting the anti collective bargaining propaganda for government workers. His line was this. I'm paraphrasing. 'Why should government workers be guaranteed a pension and retirement when people in the private sector have to pay for their own?' Well, how about your guaranteed pension Mr. Kasich? You'll just work a few years and you're set for life. You do damage to your underlings then retire to the golden golf golden in the sky. Also, there are people in the private sector that not have only guaranteed pensions but golden parachutes.

2.) I happened across an ACLJ propaganda piece on TV yesterday. They right wing answer to the ACLU. Jay Sekulow, it's illustrious leader, was interviewing so-called experts on Sharia law. Of course they were all saying the US is in danger of being taken over by Islamic Sharia law. The thing that was obvious, that I don't think Kool Aid drinking wing nuts understand, is that they were making an excellent case for separation of church and state. I always hear these people say that God is being removed from American society yet they argue against religious law being forced on the people and government.

I see 'little' hypocrisies all the time on both sides of the political spectrum. It seems obviously enormous hypocrisies are always on the right yet I rarely see a reporter or interviewer challenge the big ones.

[iamthebandfanman]

1. unfortunately, as of late

this hasnt only been a republican trait.

[Lint Head]

3. Agreed. I rarely see examples of anyone being called out on them and news

gatherers are supposed to be intelligent college graduates with journalistic savvy.

[LWolf]

17. +1

[cutlassmama]

2. sociopaths, the whole lot of them

[kctim]

4. Both sides are just as guilty as the other

and the further left or right you go, the greater the "hypocrisies."

[Fumesucker]

6. Yes, the only people free of hypocrisy are moderate centrists..

It's like a kind of a Zen thing..

[Le Taz Hot]

10. Actually, no,

the left hasn't gone anywhere (except under Obama's Big Bus), the Apologist Center gets they "hypocrisy" distinction here. They spend lots and lots of time explaining why it's a GOOD thing that Obama has chosen to follow Republican policies. Nope. The left is as principled as they've ever been -- still fighting the good fight for social safety nets for the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed, it's just that now we're having to fight the Republicans AND the Centrist Democrats.

[kctim]

13. That doesn't mean there is no hypocrisy in their views or beliefs

[Le Taz Hot]

15. Such as . . .

[kctim]

23. Being pro-choice is a big one

The further left or right you go, the less choice there is. The far-left proclaims to be pro-choice, but that is only true on issues they believe there should be a choice on. Nobody should tell another who they can care about and marry, but it is ok to dictate who people care about and aide. It's no different than the far-right saying the opposite while proclaiming they are for individual rights.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. What are we anti-choice about?

Marriage? Progressives are for marriage equality and always have been. Freedom of reproductive choice? Again, our policy stance has ALWAYS been pro-choice. In what are we anti-choice? You've yet to make a cogent point here.

[kctim]

25. I made a very cogent point, it just went over your head

Progressives like to harp about who one cares for and wants to marry being nobodys business but those involved. That government should not dictate that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. And yet, they wish to use government to dictate that people must care about the poor and pay taxes to support them.
It is hypocritical to want government to dictate who people should care for on one issue, but not want it to dictate who people care for on another issue.

Progressives wail about being pro-choice on the abortion issue, but yet they do not wish to give those oppossed to abortion the choice on whether to pay for abortions or not.

Smoking, healthcare, retirement. On and on.

Supporting choice ONLY on the things one agrees with does NOT make one "pro-choice."

[Quantess]

27. I had no idea being pro-choice means wanting to "dictate that people must care about the poor".

A lot of libertarians are pro-choice. Do you think they "wish to use government to dictate that people must care about the poor and pay taxes to support them"? By definition, no. Libertarians, in general, aren't all that enthusiastic about welfare programs. And that's a completely different topic, anyway!

Anyway, the term "pro-choice" refers to reproductive choice. When the subject turns to gay marriage, --which IS a separate topic-- people don't call it "pro-choice".

Another thing-- taxpayers don't pay for other people's abortions. Does this come as a surprise to you?

Your argument falls completely flat. Are liberals totally alien to you, or what? After all this time on the DU, you still have a hard time understanding our reasoning, apparently.

[kctim]

32. Sorry

but we are talking about hypocritical views, and believing people should only have free choice on the things you want them to, is a hypocritical view when one is claiming to be pro-choice. Especially when complaining about your freedom of choice being taken from you.
Claiming the term 'pro-choice' only applies when you say it does, only reinforces the hypocrisy of it all.

Who pays for abortions is not the issue here, choice is. If you support giving people the choice to have one but do not support people having the choice to pay for it, you are not pro-choice. Sure it's political beneficial to say you are pro-choice in hopes people will believe that to be true on ALL things, but it's not the whole truth.

I understand the far-left quite well which is why I am not afraid to point out the flaws in its holier than thou reasoning. I do the same thing to conservatives and they hate it just as much.

[Quantess]

33. I don't understand. If you choose to get an abortion, then it follows that

you have chosen to pay for it yourself. "You" meaning the woman, the man involved, or both. In the USA, anyway.

What am I missing, here?

[Quantess]

35. Are you referring to libertarians?

I realize this is an old thread, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. Your argument falls completely flat, and I would like you to please take note of it, so that you don't try this again.

Libertarians are the ones who want freedoms to choose. Freedom of choice is what libertarians are all about.

Liberals are pro-choice, specifically referring to reproductive rights. It is a fact that you have to pay for your own abortion, or maybe your insurance covers it, but you pay for your own insurance.

Liberals also support things like food stamps, welfare, etc. Please not that this is a completely different topic. Nobody gets to control where every government dollar goes, whether it's for financial bail-outs, wars, or food stamps.

Now, where, exactly, is this hypocrisy you speak of? You don't have to reply, but you'd better not try this again.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. Well, you'll have to pardon the dullard in me

but I do, from time to time, require clarification in order to thoroughly understand the issue at hand.

I'm not sure I understand your statement "And yet, they wish to use government to dictate that people must care about the poor and pay taxes to support them." I think in a civilized society, a Democratic society, a compassionate society, we have a moral imperative to help those who are less fortunate. One doesn't have to be affiliated with any particular political movement or religion, we, as a society, have (up until recently) agreed to help those who are in need.

"It is hypocritical to want government to dictate who people should care for on one issue, but not want it to dictate who people care for on another issue." This sentence is too nebulous to be able to respond to.

"Progressives wail about being pro-choice on the abortion issue, but yet they do not wish to give those opposed to abortion the choice on whether to pay for abortions or not." Unfortunately, we don't get to pick and choose how and where our tax dollars are appropriated. If that was the case mine would go solely to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans and women's reproductive choice and not one dime to weaponry to kill people. But it doesn't work like that, does it? Besides, I don't think you have anything to worry about in terms of paying for abortions -- the government, in it's patriarchal wisdom and with LOTS and LOTS of help from "Democrats," have absolved you from that responsibility.

You'll have to be a little bit more specific about "smoking, healthcare and so on" for me to further comment.

[kctim]

29. We are talking about being pro-choice or not

not about opinions of what is right or wrong. If you don't want individual morals used on one thing, but want them used on another, that is a hypocritical stance.

Of course tax dollars don't work that way, but then again, they weren't meant to fund everything under the sun either. But, we are talking about choice, and favoring one person having a choice and another person not having a choice, is being a hypocrite.

Smoking: Laws that prevent business owners from running a business that allows smoking are in fact laws that take away choice for that individual.
Healthcare: If you favor a law that does not allow an individual to decide what plan, or even no plan, for themselves, then you are not pro-choice.

A person is not pro-choice if they pick and choose who gets choice and when they get it. They are a hypocrit.

[Quantess]

30. That's some weird terminology you're using.

Both of you! It is uncommon to use the term pro-choice about anything other than abortion.

Are you talking about being a libertarian, or...? Lumping gay marriage, smoking, seatbelts, and government social programs under the "pro-choice" tent is just such a unusual line of thinking, in my opinion.

Government spending of our tax dollars is an apple, and abortion rights are an orange.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. How about giving me some examples of those left wing hypocrites

I always hear this "it's just as bad on both sides" bullshit, but I'm afraid I don't see it. Do tell. Please.

[slackmaster]

31. A left jack boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack boot up your ass

...according to a former co-worker who was born in China.

The far left and the far right take you toward the same place - An authoritarian police state.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. It's an ophthalmological problem for RW business/corporations.

[WilliamPitt]

7. They're not blind to it.

The utter absence of shame is their most potent weapon.

[Lint Head]

8. You hit it right on!

[RegieRocker]

9. Your eyes have opened a little more......

My definition of insanity "believing in, two opposing ideas at the same time". Most suffer from this evil ailment.

[peace frog]

11. Just as Nixon once said:

"If the president does it, that means it's legal" when clearly what he did was illegal, so wingnuts are convinced that if they believe something then it's automatically right and true and anyone who proclaims it hypocrisy is wrong. Simple! just like they are. :evilgrin:

[FarLeftFist]

12. Because they aren't PRO anything, they are just HATE the Left.

They don't care if the GOP believed we are alien descendants all they care about is HATE. Which is why they seem to win the PR campaign, because most Liberals have a hard time mustering up that much hatred for fellow humans the way they do. They have the loudest, most hateful voices therefore they get the media attention.

[treestar]

14. What a moron

1. The public sector people pay for theirs the same way. It is part of the compensation for doing their job. So he's missing that piece of logic too.

2. You are absolutely right. They don't get that the separation is what allows them to practice their religion without interference.

[DefenseLawyer]

18. They realize that the right wing mind is nothing if not loyal

They realized a long time ago that as much as they talk about ideology, it's really more about their side "winning" and the other side "losing", no matter what. That base identifies with "being a republican" and seems to take comfort in just being part of the group. When people think along those lines they are very willing to rationalize, very willing to ignore what we all see as hypocrisy. Just win, baby.

[unblock]

19. because they're at war. war is loaded with hypocrisy but it's about loyalty, not hypocrisy.

if our non-uniform people die, it's a war crim;, but if their non-uniform people die, it's collateral damage, or maybe they were non-uniform combatants anyway.

whatever treatment prisoners-of-war get, if we're running the gulag, it's humane; if they're running it, again it's a war crime.

and so on.



they're at war against democrats, against the left, against science, etc. WHATEVER they do is justified because it's THEIR side doing it. WHATEVER we do is unjustified because it's OUR side doing it.

[rocktivity]

20. Because they can't exist without it

It's their mother's milk, their oxygen, because it relieves them of both accountability and empathy.

Also, they are very much into living for the moment, craving the immediate gratification of achieving their ends to the point where they ignore any possible long-term consequences. Healthy minds grasp the concept of "If I take a cookie without asking/stay out past curfew/don't get this report to my boss/murder someone, I'll get into trouble." Why do you think they say, "Nobody could have anticipated" all the time?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Javaman]

21. They are the servants of stupid...

they don't understand irony either.

[sofa king]

22. I wrote an article about it years back.

Support for inequality and resistance to change are the two main results of the fear which motivates right-wing authoritarians, which explains some of the hypocrisy pretty well.

But they are also very poor thinkers (relying instead on "authorities" to tell them what to think) and can be easily programmed, so I suspect that many of their hypocritical positions--the ones not obviously rooted in fear--are actually evidence of programming by their authoritarian leaders.

You're going to see a fine example of what happens when two hypocrisies collide here soon, as defense contractors bitterly fight it out with the rest of the uber-rich to see who's going to take a half-trillion dollar hit in the debt negotiations. They in turn are going to buy different talking heads and news outlets to catapult their propaganda and win the "programming" war, and the GOP organ is going to find itself playing two clashing tunes at once, just before the primary season opens. What makes this case interesting is that it will be two trusted conservative authorities each trying to shout down the other with their own set of lies which won't match.

I hypothesize that that conflict will "short out" many RWA voters, reduce campaign donations from them (not important since corporations are the big Republican backers now), and lower voter turnout in the primaries and the general election. The magic number is 23. That's the percentage of RWAs in America, and it shows up everywhere. If that base level of support drops below 23% for the worst and most batshit insane Republican primary candidate (maybe Bachmann?), then I think we can conclude that the split has temporarily ablated conservative voters.

http://www.gonemagazine.net/?p=175

[Lint Head]

26. Thanks for the link and info!

:fistbump:

[ChoppinBroccoli]

34. They're Trained Seals--They Bark At What They're Trained To Bark At

Or maybe a better parallel is a parrot that's been taught to speak. It will say whatever words it's "master" teaches it to say, but it has no actual understanding of what those words mean. That describes about 90% of Republican voters. Pretty much the only thought they put into their political beliefs is a two-second analysis of whether or not something is "good" or "bad" and that's it. They slap on the label and quit thinking right then and there. Welfare? BAD!!! Tax cuts? GOOD!!! Spending? BAD!!! Abortion? BAD!!! War? GOOD!!! Religion? GOOD!!!

That's pretty much the depth of their political understanding.