If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   A look at why partisans can't stop being hypocrites. Apparently, it's something in their brain   (npr.org) divider line 124
    More: Ironic, liberal Republicans, John Sides, hypocrites  
•       •       •

2079 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2013 at 12:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-15 12:48:27 PM
Same reason Patriot fans are convinced their Super Bowls are not a rssult of their cheating.
 
2013-06-15 12:51:24 PM
The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?
 
2013-06-15 12:51:34 PM
That was pretty clear this week, when polls revealed more Democrats than Republicans support tracking of phone traffic by the National Security Agency - the exact opposite of where things stood under President George W. Bush.

This is the supposed 'Librul' NPR right here. The Bush Administration looked at phone records without court orders and lied about when they got caught.

That's not what's happening here.

And yes, I get that they shouldn't be able to get warrants after the fact, and a secret court makes me very, very nervous. But those have been the rules for a while, and those rules were not broken.
 
2013-06-15 12:53:24 PM
I thought it was just because the more partisan you are, the more you can justify unethical and inconsistent behaviour that you think gives "your side" an advantage.
 
2013-06-15 12:55:31 PM
To be fair, some hypocrisy is normal. There are a lot of things everyone can be hypocritical on; it's just how we work. Now, a high degree of it above the normal average is indeed cause for concern.
 
2013-06-15 01:04:08 PM
Apparently, more people think they will go to heaven than Mother Teresa.  Not too surprising people's own good opinion of themselves would translate to their tribal affiliations.
 
2013-06-15 01:07:26 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?


People who don't think for themselves.

I don't know what's sadder, the fact that there are so many of them, or that none of them even realize that they're letting someone else think for them.
 
2013-06-15 01:08:14 PM
Ironicaly that story seemed hypocritical........
 
2013-06-15 01:10:03 PM

MFAWG: That was pretty clear this week, when polls revealed more Democrats than Republicans support tracking of phone traffic by the National Security Agency - the exact opposite of where things stood under President George W. Bush.

This is the supposed 'Librul' NPR right here. The Bush Administration looked at phone records without court orders and lied about when they got caught.

That's not what's happening here.

And yes, I get that they shouldn't be able to get warrants after the fact, and a secret court makes me very, very nervous. But those have been the rules for a while, and those rules were not broken.



Good luck injecting reality into the BSRB narrative.
 
2013-06-15 01:11:02 PM
I don't have a "side". It just so happens that I disagree with the republicans on just about everything. However, I don't blindly pledge allegiance to Obama either. But his main fault in my mind is not un-farking everything Bush spent 7 years (the first year was ok) farking up. But then I don't know all the facts or how difficult it is to get shiat done, especially with a republican congress that just wants to subvert things enough so that they get into office in 2016.
 
2013-06-15 01:12:16 PM

MFAWG: But those have been the rules for a while, and those rules were not broken.


The outrage is not that rules were broken, the outrage is that nobody had to break any rules. This is a gross and utterly reprehensible trampling of the Constitution, and while the President was not breaking the law, he damn well should have used his powers as executive to reign in the scope of this crap, given his public positions on government surveillance. But the bulk of my outrage is directed where it has always been- at crap like the Patriot Act and the national security state, pressed for by a Presidential Administration that governed on a basis of fear and passed by bedwetting reactionaries from both parties in Congress to the cheers of a cowardly populace.

How's that for partisanship?
 
2013-06-15 01:12:36 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?


All too many people. And the reason is because you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. People have emotional beliefs, and reality doesn't matter.
 
2013-06-15 01:13:44 PM
A recent Stanford University study found that people are more likely to have hostile feelings toward people of the other party than members of another race.

Well... good.
 
2013-06-15 01:15:12 PM
As an aside, do not confuse hypocrisy with failing to live up to a standard. Hypocrisy usually involves claimed justification.

What's fun is watching people "massage" facts to fit their narrative and argue they're not being hypocritical. Such as the tools who say it was illegal when Bush did "it" but it's legal now. "It" being something vaguely similar but different.
 
2013-06-15 01:15:26 PM

Mugato: I don't have a "side". It just so happens that I disagree with the republicans on just about everything. However, I don't blindly pledge allegiance to Obama either. But his main fault in my mind is not un-farking everything Bush spent 7 years (the first year was ok) farking up. But then I don't know all the facts or how difficult it is to get shiat done, especially with a republican congress that just wants to subvert things enough so that they get into office in 2016.


For serious issues, it probably helps to have the major parties to be sane and not self destructive. Sadly one of them currently doesn't fit either.
 
2013-06-15 01:15:44 PM

anfrind: Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?

People who don't think for themselves.

I don't know what's sadder, the fact that there are so many of them, or that none of them even realize that they're letting someone else think for them.


Yes, everyone else, not that other people have different standards for voting.  I think issue voting is stupid and counter productive.  You're not voting for issues, you're voting for governance that will address a whole range of issues, all of importance -- some in aggregate greater than any one issue.

As such it makes no sense to flip flop between the parties.  More importantly, candidates do not matter.  They all vote with their party platform upwards of 90% of the time.  That's why you vote for parties, not personalities.  That's all individual candidates are, personalities -- *personalities that will tell you want you want to hear* -- especially when it comes to individual issues that people feel "very strongly" about.  They use people like that.

I think you are both rubes for ambitious personalities, and a major source of dysfunctional governance.
 
2013-06-15 01:16:12 PM
Heh. Good thing FARK has avoided that.
 
2013-06-15 01:19:31 PM

Mrbogey: As an aside, do not confuse hypocrisy with failing to live up to a standard. Hypocrisy usually involves claimed justification.

What's fun is watching people "massage" facts to fit their narrative and argue they're not being hypocritical. Such as the tools who say it was illegal when Bush did "it" but it's legal now. "It" being something vaguely similar but different.


Not 'Vaguely Similar'. 'Completely Different'.
 
2013-06-15 01:19:44 PM
A look at why partisans can't stop being hypocrites. Apparently, it's something in their brain

Obligatory: You sound concerned.
Obligatory: BBABSVR
 
2013-06-15 01:21:57 PM
brain and brain. what is brain?
 
2013-06-15 01:23:10 PM
That's a hell of a lot of words to say confirmation bias.
 
2013-06-15 01:24:10 PM
Heh, try being an atheist Republican...
 
2013-06-15 01:26:21 PM
It's not hypocrisy to trust Democrats with powers I would never want to see in the hands of Republicans. It might be shortsighted given that government changes, but it's not hypocritical.
 
2013-06-15 01:33:35 PM

anfrind: Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?

People who don't think for themselves.

I don't know what's sadder, the fact that there are so many of them, or that none of them even realize that they're letting someone else think for them.


Not for nothing, but IME, when somebody says "Think for yourself, damnit!", 75% of the time, they're saying "Agree with me, damnit!"
 
2013-06-15 01:42:04 PM

randomjsa: Heh, try being an atheist Republican...


RINO like typing detected.
 
2013-06-15 01:42:29 PM

Mugato: I don't have a "side". It just so happens that I disagree with the republicans on just about everything. However, I don't blindly pledge allegiance to Obama either. But his main fault in my mind is not un-farking everything Bush spent 7 years (the first year was ok) farking up. But then I don't know all the facts or how difficult it is to get shiat done, especially with a republican congress that just wants to subvert things enough so that they get into office in 2016.


Pretty much THIS.  I'd add that Obama hasn't been nearly socialist or anti-Republican enough.
 
2013-06-15 01:47:09 PM
FTFA: ...they tend to accept the position of the political elites they trust

Well there's your problem. There are no trustworthy politicians.
 
2013-06-15 01:49:51 PM
Is that a fancy way to say they have their heads up their asses?
 
2013-06-15 01:53:48 PM

randomjsa: Heh, try being an atheist Republican...


You mean "Libertarian Leaning Independent(tm)."
 
2013-06-15 02:00:54 PM

randomjsa: Heh, try being an atheist Republican...


i'd imagine it's a bit like being a Catholic Democrat these days.
 
2013-06-15 02:01:21 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?


This.
 
2013-06-15 02:02:17 PM

DarnoKonrad: Yes, everyone else, not that other people have different standards for voting. I think issue voting is stupid and counter productive. You're not voting for issues, you're voting for governance that will address a whole range of issues, all of importance -- some in aggregate greater than any one issue.

As such it makes no sense to flip flop between the parties. More importantly, candidates do not matter. They all vote with their party platform upwards of 90% of the time. That's why you vote for parties, not personalities. That's all individual candidates are, personalities -- *personalities that will tell you want you want to hear* -- especially when it comes to individual issues that people feel "very strongly" about. They use people like that.

I think you are both rubes for ambitious personalities, and a major source of dysfunctional governance.


My apologies, perhaps I was not clear.  When I say I break party lines I mean I disagree with the party stance on an issue.  I'm not going to suddenly vote for someone I disagree with on every other issue just because one is big in the news.  Of course any candidate will follow his party's platform, but while I may mostly agree with most of a party stance I will disagree on some issues.

There is no Zarquon's Flat Tire party, and there never will be.   Our system of government seems to be 'ally with people who mostly agree with you and try to persuade them on other points'.
 
2013-06-15 02:03:06 PM

randomjsa: atheist Republican


I'd rather not.
 
2013-06-15 02:06:51 PM
We're all hypocrites.
 
2013-06-15 02:09:19 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell? I break party lines all the time. There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those


Just curious -on which issues does this result in allying with (not necessarily voting for) Republicans?  I can't name a single issue I agree with them on, even grudgingly.
 
2013-06-15 02:11:56 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?


Republicans?
 
2013-06-15 02:12:52 PM

Mugato: I don't have a "side". It just so happens that I disagree with the republicans on just about everything. However, I don't blindly pledge allegiance to Obama either. But his main fault in my mind is not un-farking everything Bush spent 7 years (the first year was ok) farking up. But then I don't know all the facts or how difficult it is to get shiat done, especially with a republican congress that just wants to subvert things enough so that they get into office in 2016.


And I'd say a Republican Congress that the people installed to put a damper on Obama's overreach. Tomato potatoe.
 
2013-06-15 02:14:38 PM

jjorsett: Mugato: I don't have a "side". It just so happens that I disagree with the republicans on just about everything. However, I don't blindly pledge allegiance to Obama either. But his main fault in my mind is not un-farking everything Bush spent 7 years (the first year was ok) farking up. But then I don't know all the facts or how difficult it is to get shiat done, especially with a republican congress that just wants to subvert things enough so that they get into office in 2016.

And I'd say a Republican Congress that the people installed to put a damper on Obama's overreach. Tomato potatoe.


Sure, if you consider being elected to the presidency twice as an overreach.
 
2013-06-15 02:19:28 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: DarnoKonrad: Yes, everyone else, not that other people have different standards for voting. I think issue voting is stupid and counter productive. You're not voting for issues, you're voting for governance that will address a whole range of issues, all of importance -- some in aggregate greater than any one issue.

As such it makes no sense to flip flop between the parties. More importantly, candidates do not matter. They all vote with their party platform upwards of 90% of the time. That's why you vote for parties, not personalities. That's all individual candidates are, personalities -- *personalities that will tell you want you want to hear* -- especially when it comes to individual issues that people feel "very strongly" about. They use people like that.

I think you are both rubes for ambitious personalities, and a major source of dysfunctional governance.

My apologies, perhaps I was not clear.  When I say I break party lines I mean I disagree with the party stance on an issue.  I'm not going to suddenly vote for someone I disagree with on every other issue just because one is big in the news.  Of course any candidate will follow his party's platform, but while I may mostly agree with most of a party stance I will disagree on some issues.

There is no Zarquon's Flat Tire party, and there never will be.   Our system of government seems to be 'ally with people who mostly agree with you and try to persuade them on other points'.



No, you're clear.  I just really disagree with the way you vote.  Any candidate, of any party is the same creature.  For example, there isn't a single substantive issue Jon Huntsman and Michell Bachmann disagree on.  One just sounds crazier than the other.  A personality trail, not a policy stance.  As far as I'm concerned, if you're "allying with people" you're doing it wrong.

Voting is very very easy.  You read the party platforms, you walk into the voting both and vote for all the candidates of the party you agree with most -- or against the ones you disagree with most.  Beyond that, you're fooling yourself into thinking there's some kind of  choice.  The voting records of the vast majority of politicians is clear; they amount to nothing more than the letter next to their name.
 
2013-06-15 02:32:00 PM
a void?
 
2013-06-15 02:33:31 PM

DarnoKonrad: Any candidate, of any party is the same creature. For example, there isn't a single substantive issue Jon Huntsman and Michell Bachmann disagree on. One just sounds crazier than the other. A personality trail, not a policy stance. As far as I'm concerned, if you're "allying with people" you're doing it wrong.

Voting is very very easy. You read the party platforms, you walk into the voting both and vote for all the candidates of the party you agree with most -- or against the ones you disagree with most. Beyond that, you're fooling yourself into thinking there's some kind of choice. The voting records of the vast majority of politicians is clear; they amount to nothing more than the letter next to their name.


Yup.  It should be pointed out that this is particularly true of the Republicans, though.  There's SOME variation among Democrats on things like gun control and national security issues, but no variation whatsoever among Republicans on any substantive issue -as you said, some just sound crazier than others.
 
2013-06-15 02:35:03 PM

HeartBurnKid: anfrind: Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?

People who don't think for themselves.

I don't know what's sadder, the fact that there are so many of them, or that none of them even realize that they're letting someone else think for them.

Not for nothing, but IME, when somebody says "Think for yourself, damnit!", 75% of the time, they're saying "Agree with me, damnit!"


Unfortunately, you're right.  But oftentimes you can recognize that 75% by the worn-out talking points and weasel words they unwittingly use just before saying it.
 
2013-06-15 02:35:58 PM

jjorsett: a republican congress that just wants to subvert things enough so that they get into office in 2016.

And I'd say a Republican Congress that the people installed to put a damper on Obama's overreach. Tomato potatoe.


Well, when they make statements that outright say their only goal was to make Obama a one term President and when they block everything, including things they previously supported, I sense a little obstructionism.
 
2013-06-15 02:36:46 PM

cptjeff: MFAWG: But those have been the rules for a while, and those rules were not broken.

The outrage is not that rules were broken, the outrage is that nobody had to break any rules. This is a gross and utterly reprehensible trampling of the Constitution, and while the President was not breaking the law, he damn well should have used his powers as executive to reign in the scope of this crap, given his public positions on government surveillance. But the bulk of my outrage is directed where it has always been- at crap like the Patriot Act and the national security state, pressed for by a Presidential Administration that governed on a basis of fear and passed by bedwetting reactionaries from both parties in Congress to the cheers of a cowardly populace.

How's that for partisanship?


Frankly, considering that Bush was bypassing the FISA courts with alarming regularity, Obama abiding by the system does represent a reigning-in of the garbage that went on before.  Not as drastic of one as I'd like to see, but a marked improvement.
 
2013-06-15 02:40:59 PM

hurdboy: randomjsa: Heh, try being an atheist Republican...

i'd imagine it's a bit like being a Catholic Democrat these days.


That's not that difficult if you believe in free will.
 
2013-06-15 02:44:57 PM
Another load of horseshiat article form NPR.
 
2013-06-15 02:48:30 PM

cptjeff: This is a gross and utterly reprehensible trampling of the Constitution, and while the President was not breaking the law, he damn well should have used his powers as executive to reign in the scope of this crap


Well, perhaps he should have done so.

But just how do you suppose Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/et al would have reacted?

Think about it for a bit.

"Dictator handing our country over to Islam" might have been the very least of the terms flung, methinks.
 
2013-06-15 02:48:34 PM

DarnoKonrad: No, you're clear. I just really disagree with the way you vote. Any candidate, of any party is the same creature. For example, there isn't a single substantive issue Jon Huntsman and Michell Bachmann disagree on. One just sounds crazier than the other. A personality trail, not a policy stance. As far as I'm concerned, if you're "allying with people" you're doing it wrong.

Voting is very very easy. You read the party platforms, you walk into the voting both and vote for all the candidates of the party you agree with most -- or against the ones you disagree with most. Beyond that, you're fooling yourself into thinking there's some kind of choice. The voting records of the vast majority of politicians is clear; they amount to nothing more than the letter next to their name.


Really, because it sounds to me like we vote the same way.  But if I disagree on an issue I will try to convince others who seem to lean my way on other issues that my opinion on the matter is right.  By 'allying with people' I don't refer to the candidate really, I mean people I know and interact with who I assume vote for the same people I do (I try to keep politics out of most social interaction).

The Name: Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell? I break party lines all the time. There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those

Just curious -on which issues does this result in allying with (not necessarily voting for) Republicans?  I can't name a single issue I agree with them on, even grudgingly.


Well while I'm fairly left (I was trying to not name a side but being pressed for an issue really tends to throw it into relief) I'm not the biggest fan of gun control.  I'm all for background checks, hell limit magazines to 10 it won't affect me really, but the talk of banning any semi-automatic weapon was a little off-putting.  For a bit some of the rhetoric sounded like a few influential people wanted to make the little .22 caliber 15 shot rifle my grandfather taught me to shoot with illegal.  Honestly I can think of few firearms that would be impractical to commit a crime with, and adding a polymer stock wouldn't change that.

There are some goddamn crazy people out there who shouldn't have guns, but I can't think of a way to keep weapons away from them, and I haven't heard of a good sounding plan to do that yet.
 
2013-06-15 02:58:34 PM

DarnoKonrad: anfrind: Zarquon's Flat Tire: The hell?  I break party lines all the time.  There a few issues I feel very strongly about so I ally with the party that promotes those, but holy hell who follows the exact guidelines some stranger sets up as "These are the things that you must believe"?

People who don't think for themselves.

I don't know what's sadder, the fact that there are so many of them, or that none of them even realize that they're letting someone else think for them.

Yes, everyone else, not that other people have different standards for voting.  I think issue voting is stupid and counter productive.  You're not voting for issues, you're voting for governance that will address a whole range of issues, all of importance -- some in aggregate greater than any one issue.

As such it makes no sense to flip flop between the parties.  More importantly, candidates do not matter.  They all vote with their party platform upwards of 90% of the time.  That's why you vote for parties, not personalities.  That's all individual candidates are, personalities -- *personalities that will tell you want you want to hear* -- especially when it comes to individual issues that people feel "very strongly" about.  They use people like that.

I think you are both rubes for ambitious personalities, and a major source of dysfunctional governance.


DarnoKonrad, surely the factors that drive non-aligned voters, like who looks best on TV, who delivers the wittiest debate zinger, and who runs the most or most emotionally charged ads matter. Can you at least concede that?

Because I just don't see how anyone could take seriously the factors that drive partisan voters. "Constellations of shared values?" "General agreement with government philosophy?" "Support for expressed policy agenda?" What kind of bullsh*t do you people tell yourselves to make this make sense?

And to all those retards who think things like "differences in fact patterns and governing law between different situations" should matter in the least in forming an opinion on what should be a reductivist, context-divorced issue like the surveillance state, I say: you people are the doom of our republic!
 
2013-06-15 03:03:36 PM

Kittypie070: cptjeff: This is a gross and utterly reprehensible trampling of the Constitution, and while the President was not breaking the law, he damn well should have used his powers as executive to reign in the scope of this crap

Well, perhaps he should have done so.

But just how do you suppose Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/et al would have reacted?

Think about it for a bit.

"Dictator handing our country over to Islam" might have been the very least of the terms flung, methinks.


They already say things like that about him no matter what he does.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report