You know, it's amazing and ironic to me...

[TheHuckster]

Mjr, seriously, what point are you trying to make?

Yes, there are people who are hypocrites, and it is something that is completely independent of their beliefs and views. Religious people, atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, male, female, it doesn't matter. It's a trait, and a shortcoming that people should try to avoid.

So, pointing out certain people's hypocrisy over this single issue is meaningless. You're going to find hypocrites in every single issue, especially controversial issues. The fact that there are people who do so doesn't delegitimize others' concerns a lot of people have about what Trump is going to do as president.

[Greenday]

Two words: Electoral college.

Ok, then it's more like "You can't do that".

Like Democrats don't pull that same crap. If you think they don't, you weren't paying attention to the election.

You didn't destroy government emails. But when you support someone who did, you're encouraging it.

The electoral college is a sham of a system.

Which I don't care. There's a lot of things you shouldn't be allowed to do and if people had common sense, we wouldn't need those laws.

I don't care about 99% of the emails she deleted. Everyone deletes emails.

[mjr]

The electoral college is a sham of a system.

Because Trump won it, right?

Which I don't care. There's a lot of things you shouldn't be allowed to do and if people had common sense, we wouldn't need those laws.

People disagree, though, on what we should and shouldn't be allowed to do.

I don't care about 99% of the emails she deleted. Everyone deletes emails.

What of the other 1%? What of her actions? What of the fact that she lied (or someone in her circle lied) about turning them all over?

See, that's the problem. Some things that Hillary did/said are "acceptable" because she had a D behind her name. Just like some things Trump said are "acceptable" because he had an R behind his name.

[Hanzoku]

No, it's a sham either way. If more of the population had supported Trump, he should have been president. Not because of an antiquated system that gives certain parts of the country more power because their votes per person is 'worth' more.

As for the Hillary bashing... oh blah, blah, blah. It's like the constant chanting of Benghazi. If the worst you can throw at her is minor things, while ignoring that darling Trump is a steaming mass of corruption, misogyny, racism and religious intolerance... I don't know what further benefit there is to debating this issue.

[Gravekeeper]

Mjr, seriously, what point are you trying to make?

Seriously, aside from just pointless partisan shitposting what even is the point here?

I mean ffs:

That some people calling for unity, love, and tolerance right now are saying things like:

"I choose love. Are you with me?"

yet, at the same time, they're saying things like:

"f*** you"

[*]Not ALL Republicans made fun of Michelle Obama or Malia & Sasha. Most that I know didn't.

I mean come on. Just name your thread "Partisan Shitposting Topic #48" and be done with it. Save us the trouble.

Also, really, your baseline here is Madonna?

[Talon]

I'm perfectly happy to save myself the trouble and not respond to this cock-shite.

[mjr]

Seriously, aside from just pointless partisan shitposting what even is the point here?

Not sure I get what's partisan. Sometimes I post these things to get people to think, sometimes.

I mean come on. Just name your thread "Partisan Shitposting Topic #48" and be done with it. Save us the trouble.

Also, really, your baseline here is Madonna?

And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen. The "tolerance" from the left. All the "love".

Thanks for proving my point. Because you can't sit there and tell me that NONE of these women felt the same way Madonna expressed that she felt. I'd wager a LOT of them did. Otherwise, a lot of them wouldn't be there. And there were probably many more who did feel that way who couldn't make it/chose not to go for whatever reason.

"I'm about love and tolerance and <insert feel-good thing here>, but only for those who agree with me!"

Maybe people would really understand more about what "love" is, if they'd read the Red Words more often.

I'm guilty of not reading them enough, but at least I can admit it. And I fail miserably on a daily basis to follow those teachings. Why? I'm a flawed person.

I didn't even vote for Trump (I voted McMullin). I just think it's a little disingenuous to sit there do the usual thing of lumping entire groups of people together. I've said before, there's a right & wrong way to go about these things. I can't help it if they continually choose the wrong way.

[s_stabeler]

in regards the email scandal, one reason I think it's no big deal is the old rule about never attributing to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Did her staffers- who were the ones who actually deleted emails- delete government emails? Apparently yes. Was it a deliberate decision on Clinton's part? I don't think so- and I don't think it was a conscious decision on the part of the staffers either.

[Daskinor]

Alright, this whole thread is pissing me off.

Yes people can be hypocrites, that is friggen obvious.

On the other side, I can say that I support arbitrary things like 'love' and still call people I am protesting against 'assholes' without being a hypocrite. If someone disagrees it can be because we don't have a shared definition of the meaning of 'love' in the context it is being used in.

But the real problem is that people are debating in 'Generalities' that they turn the entire discussion into a gigantic straw man cluster fuck. People can preach love and not call other people names, others will preach love and say things that counter it, and finally some people will preach love and say things that they don't think counter it, but others will.

But in essence this is all a frigen logical fallacy people are arguing about, some more than others. You can debate a person (SINGULAR) is a hypocrite. You can debate if the core ideas of a tightly defined group are hypocritical.

You cannot debate if the ideas of the left or right, or a group that can be defined in a few words are hypocritical. Because there is no defining factor that can be used to quantified a group that large or vague. Even if you cherry pick a few individuals who may or may not show the generality is true, its still a fallacy of selective attention. Only because for every one example going one way, another can show the opposite. Once again, because the premise is so general.

[Gravekeeper]

Not sure I get what's partisan.

And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen. The "tolerance" from the left. All the "love".

Least keep your shit together in the same post.

Thanks for proving my point.

The only way I'm proving your "point" is if you were viewing this in monolith partisan terms. Which in turn makes your "not all Republicans" counterpoint all the more hypocritical.

Because you can't sit there and tell me that NONE of these women felt the same way Madonna expressed that she felt.

I didn't. No one did. You're just throwing together yet another pile of partisan straw to shit on.

[Canarr]

Daskinor is right, this discussion is pointless. Both "the Liberals" and "the Conservatives" are too large and too diverse as groups for any kind of blanket statement to be valid.

And: it's certainly neither "amazing" nor "ironic" that out of every group, some people will be hypocrites. There is literally nothing to discuss here.

[mjr]

Daskinor is right, this discussion is pointless. Both "the Liberals" and "the Conservatives" are too large and too diverse as groups for any kind of blanket statement to be valid.

Then why is it done? From my perspective (and only my perspective), the assumption is there that the ONLY reasons that people voted for Donald Trump are racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred, and homophobia. Just look at the comments on this very forum for evidence of that. Very few have actually acknowledged "Maybe people voted for him for some other reason...", it's always "There's no valid reason for anyone to have voted for him."

I've actually known and worked with a diverse group of people of all political stripes. I live in Texas, so it's mostly Conservative, but I know a few Liberals. Heck, I married one. I don't think all Liberals are bad, vile people. I know a few people that are Libertarian. I know a couple who are socialists. I think all of them ultimately want the same thing: A better country. The reasonable ones I'm OK with, though I may disagree with them about what a "better country" is.

I know Christians, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, and people whose religion I don't know. Heck, my wife is an agnostic, and is ethnically Jewish.

[mjr]

The only way I'm proving your "point" is if you were viewing this in monolith partisan terms. Which in turn makes your "not all Republicans" counterpoint all the more hypocritical.

Like you do, as it generally relates to anyone who voted for Trump? And you know you do. You firmly believe that anyone (i.e. a "monolith") who voted for Trump did so because they are one of the following: racist, sexist, hateful, homophobic, or some sort of bigot.

Prove me wrong, there. BTW, I'll say it again: I didn't vote for Trump.

But how many of the women who showed up to these protests voted? Do you know? How many of them could tell you who their Representative/Senator are?

Oh, and I've never claimed I'm not a hypocrite. I've never claimed I'm "holier than thou", either.

Aside from that, you're in Canada. Why does this matter to you? Doesn't Canada have it's own issues? Who's running Canada never really crosses my mind -- and I would wager that who's running Canada never crosses the average American's mind (as in someone in the U.S.).

But hey, I'm tired of coming down to your level. So I'll step back, be the bigger man, and let you have the last word. Have at it. Whatever you wanna say, personal attack or not. Go for it. Whatever you wanna say. And I'll smile, and move on. True colors. Go for it.

[Daskinor]

Then why is it done? From my perspective (and only my perspective), the assumption is there that the ONLY reasons that people voted for Donald Trump are racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred, and homophobia. Just look at the comments on this very forum for evidence of that. Very few have actually acknowledged "Maybe people voted for him for some other reason...", it's always "There's no valid reason for anyone to have voted for him."

I've actually known and worked with a diverse group of people of all political stripes. I live in Texas, so it's mostly Conservative, but I know a few Liberals. Heck, I married one. I don't think all Liberals are bad, vile people. I know a few people that are Libertarian. I know a couple who are socialists. I think all of them ultimately want the same thing: A better country. The reasonable ones I'm OK with, though I may disagree with them about what a "better country" is.

I know Christians, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, and people whose religion I don't know. Heck, my wife is an agnostic, and is ethnically Jewish.

Bias, mostly Confirmation bias.

[Canarr]

Then why is it done? From my perspective (and only my perspective), the assumption is there that the ONLY reasons that people voted for Donald Trump are racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred, and homophobia. Just look at the comments on this very forum for evidence of that. Very few have actually acknowledged "Maybe people voted for him for some other reason...", it's always "There's no valid reason for anyone to have voted for him."

Yes, people say that. Yes, on this forum as well. And yes, they are wrong, mostly because the claim "no valid reason to vote for Trump" carries its own infallibility: For any reason I'm given, I can always claim that it's not valid.

As I've said before, I can understand why people voted for Trump - and also, why they didn't vote for Hillary. I think it was a stupid and irresponsible thing to do, but I can understand it.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that any statements in the way of, "look how stupid/hypocritical(?) the Left/Right/Mermaids are!" is useless as a basis for a discussion. You aren't reaching anybody that way.