Does hypocrisy matter in discussions?

[Doomkid]

"Do as I say, not as I do"

[june gloom]

Hypocrisy in discussions absolutely does matter. While there is obviously supposed to be room for people to change their minds over time -- I certainly have on a number of topics -- I think more often hypocrisy applies to someone using a double standard in a fairly immediate or recent time period, such as condemning homosexuality as sexual deviancy while being very into, say, BDSM, DD/lg, or even having engaged in homosexual acts. It speaks to a personal failing on the hypocrite's part because they wish to be exempt from their own worldview.

[Arctangent]

Reminds me of the time I saw from very homophobic messages from some very cowboy-looking guys ... that basically boiled down to "sucking your best friend's dick isn't gay."

 

No, seriously. They posited that sexual acts with other men wasn't gay, As Long As You Do It Manly. Tossed in quite a few slurs with it, too.

 

Of course, the contexts painted the hypocrisy as a symptom of a larger problem, but it was still one of the most baffling things I've ever seen.

[Doomkid]

That is absolutely bizarre. Instead of owning up to homosexual desires, just change what counts as homosexual! Some people will bend reality to such extremes just to protect their fwagile wittle egos, it's totally bonkers.

 

I mean, lets be real here - isn't it just easier to admit there's nothing wrong with being gay if they're gonna go that far? "Oh sure, I slobbed his knob all night. No homo"

[Arctangent]

Well, not if ( to them ) being gay means having your wrists be limp and wearing pink, the biggest crime known to Mankind.

 

It's always a strange mix of interesting and depressing to think about how deep the rabbit hole goes with that sort of thing. It wouldn't surprise me if those very same guys were also very sexist and believed very strongly in hard-locked gender roles, just by connecting the dots of what they find truly abominable about "homosexuality."

[everennui]

Maybe sexuality is just a word that functions as a tool to divide us.

 

I know sometimes, for example I use, "faggot" as a pejorative on occasion. It always makes me feel really shitty and low class. That's what I grew up around. Poor excuse - I know. The word which I never truly understood when I learned it became a part of my lexicon as a slightly passive attack on someone who was acting like an asshole. When I do use insults that slight another group, I usually try to become more conscious of what I'm saying. Sometimes people say stupid things. This is an instance where I have been hypocritical. Does this make me a hypocrite? I submit that old habits are hard to break. People are emotional and that affects their reasoning sometimes. That should always be considered. To not consider someone because you deem them to be a hypocrite is highly judgemental. I think that's even worse.

 

I don't know enough about the pathology of the prototypical hypocritice to really speculate too much.

 

I'd guess that the word has been used so nonchalantly over the years that its probably lost all meaning. Like, "awesome."

 

A true hypocrite to me is someone who continously contradicts their projected beliefs.

 

So I guess in my opinion it depends on what you define as a hypocrite. If you know they are hypocritical then just take what they say with a grain of salt. The writers of The Constitution of the United States of America kept slaves. That's a pretty extreme example, but even they had something important to say.

[Maes]

3 hours ago, Arctangent said:

Reminds me of the time I saw from very homophobic messages from some very cowboy-looking guys ... that basically boiled down to "sucking your best friend's dick isn't gay."

 

No, seriously. They posited that sexual acts with other men wasn't gay, As Long As You Do It Manly. Tossed in quite a few slurs with it, too.

As long as the tips don't touch, it's A-OK, didn't cha know?!

2 hours ago, everennui said:

The writers of The Constitution of the United States of America kept slaves. That's a pretty extreme example, but even they had something important to say.

So did ancient Athenians, despite being a Democracy. The catch in both cases? The Constitution and Democracy applied selectively only to those considered "free citizens" of the nation/city-state. Apparently this caused no feelings of hypocrisy, contradiction or cognitive dissonance among the (free) people back then. Which clearly falls into the "rationalization" subcase I mentioned before.

 

Similarly, practically every practicing Muslim will insist that Islam is a religion of peace, that nowhere does the Qu'ran preach killing or murder etc...which is absolutely true, unless you're talking about infidels. They are not covered by the Qu'ran's "Peace & Love", actually, they're specifically excluded. If you don't like it, well, you can always convert and enjoy the protection of the largest religious community in the world ;-)

Edited May 30, 2017 by Maes : constitution

[Gez]

1 hour ago, Maes said:

If you don't like it, well, you can always convert and enjoy the protection of the largest religious community in the world ;-)

The Catholic Church?

[Maes]

40 minutes ago, Gez said:

The Catholic Church?

That's old news, and well past its prime. I think that photo of the elderly French priest getting killed by a young, testosterone-laden Jihadist tells it all. Besides, none of the current religions preaches the same level of activism or commands the same level of fanatism from its members as Islam, which is also way more than just a religion: it affects every aspect of a follower's life, including the set of laws to follows, behavior inside and inside the house, how to conduct business, how to organize his day, how to behave towards non-members etc.

[Gez]

Just saying that the Catholic Church is still the largest religious community. Islam isn't expected to take over before 2070.

[Cupboard]

Yea Catholic Church grows by leaps and bounds in Africa

[Woolie Wool]

18 hours ago, Maes said:

That's old news, and well past its prime. I think that photo of the elderly French priest getting killed by a young, testosterone-laden Jihadist tells it all. Besides, none of the current religions preaches the same level of activism or commands the same level of fanatism from its members as Islam, which is also way more than just a religion: it affects every aspect of a follower's life, including the set of laws to follows, behavior inside and inside the house, how to conduct business, how to organize his day, how to behave towards non-members etc.

There is literally nothing in this post that isn't also practiced by various fundamentalist Christian and ultra-orthodox Jewish groups. There are Christian terrorist organizations waging holy wars of extermination against Muslims in Africa right now and quite a few groups in the US who would do the same if they thought they had a chance to fight their crusade without getting Uncle Sam's boot up their asses. Also Islamist extremism as a serious movement is only around 50 years old, it was almost nonexistent before the US and USSR decided to turn the Middle East into a Cold War battleground and fuck everything up forever.

[Linguica]

Wow a thread in EE devolves into arguing over sexuality and religion? Why I never.