Hypocrisy in Liberal and Conservatives Ideals and Platforms

Politics US Politics
1

In the latest installment of my ‘hypocrisy’ series I want to talk a little bit about Liberals and Conservatives and how their policies are in direct contrast with their core values (this pertains more to Western politics).

For example, it would be fair to assume that Christians tend to side with Conservative politicians and Conservative ideals when they vote. However the conservative approach to economics is in direct contrast with the ‘help thy neighbor’ Christian ethic, and is much more Darwinian in nature.

Liberals on the other hand are more likely to have Atheists and Darwinists in their tent, yet they believe in providing a social safety net for the downtrodden which is in direct contrast to the ‘survival of the fittest’ ideal that many of them think molded our world.

Why do we have these diametrically opposing schools of though stumping for the wrong side of the argument? Shouldn’t the Darwinists be conservatives, and shouldn’t the Christians be Liberals?

Or is it all just a festering pile of donkey shit?

2

First erroneous statement , HH:

social darwinism has nothing to do with the evolutionary theory of Darwinism, but is instead conservative “Help yourself out of your own mess, and if you’re broke or poor or sick you deserved it and why the fuck should i help you?” philosophy.

3

[quote=“urodacus”]First erroneous statement , HH:

social darwinism has nothing to do with the evolutionary theory of Darwinism, but is instead conservative “Help yourself out of your own mess, and if you’re broke or poor or sick you deserved it and why the fuck should i help you?” philosophy.[/quote]

true, but you are dealing in semantics, and conceptually social Darwinism is much closer to Darwinism than the Christian ethic of helping thy neighbor, so my original point is still up for debate. Why this difference?

4

I find it interesting that this is treated as binary question.

It’s not.

Liberals and conservatives are remarkably alike. It’s the process by which they seek to accomplish things that makes them different. And, within those two camps, there are quite a few variables.

Family life, education, social status and other aspects of a person’s environment conspire to push everyone into one camp or another.

To attribute hypocrisy to either camp seems a bit harsh.

5

There are also PLENTY of liberal Christians. Many more than the talk shows and pundits would like anyone to believe.

6

Bad assumptions. Liberals and conservatives don’t make up monolithic voting blocks. Christians come in sorts of varieties. For a while in the '80s, you had conservative and liberal churches in the US funding opposed factions in Central American civil wars. Get granular.

7

Neoconservatism, which is often considered a dirty word by liberals on here, is pretty much an ideology that was pushed forward by cold-war liberals, many of whom were immigrant leftists in the 1930s/40s and who abandoned their hard leftism because of their disgust with Stalin. As a result, many became ardent anti-communist liberals during the Cold War, but were still liberals and mostly Democrats. Furthermore, during the Republican detente years under Nixon/Kissinger in the late 60s/early and mid 70s, it was this group that often criticized US foreign policy from the right (e.g., Scoop Jackson). Many (e.g., Abrams, Perle, Wolfowitz) abandoned the Dems after the fool Carter became president and served in the Reagan and Bush Jr. admins. Many still hold liberal positions in social policy but are foreign policy hawks and strong supporters of Israel.

When posters on here use it as an insult word and a word that only applies to Republican ideology, they are showing their stupidity and hypocrisy because so much of the ideology has its roots in Democratic Party members/politicians/voting blocs that voted with the Dems until 1968 (when the party became dominated by foolish policy platforms and special interests). :laughing:

These were people, at least in the older generation that lived through/came of age in the 30/40s that often had first hand experiences with authoritarian governments first hand and had little time later on for students/Democratic youth activists in the 60s that idolized thugs such as Mao, Che etc.

8

Bad assumptions. Liberals and conservatives don’t make up monolithic voting blocks. Christians come in sorts of varieties. For a while in the '80s, you had conservative and liberal churches in the US funding opposed factions in Central American civil wars. Get granular.[/quote]

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.

9

There’s a vast difference between biological evolution and the notion of “social Darwinism”, which is a misapplication of principles of biological evolution.

10

The guns and religion crowd are an interesting group. I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?

11

Not as interesting as the tofu, teaching and ESL group.

[quote] I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?[/quote]

An Uzi :laughing: He’d want to ‘buy local’ if he were the opposite of the guns and religion crowd (or free market conservatives) as you suggest he would be. :laughing:

12

[quote=“Homey”]The guns and religion crowd are an interesting group. I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?[/quote]
Same with the sports and religion crowd. Rough, ass-kicking “kill, kill, win, win!” competitive sports seem incongruous with humble, selfless “do unto others and serve the least of our brothers” faith.

13

Not as interesting as the tofu, teaching and ESL group.

[quote] I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?[/quote]

A Uzi :laughing: He’d want to ‘buy local’ if he were the opposite of the guns and religion crowd (or free market conservatives) as you suggest he would be. :laughing:[/quote]

Goddamn boy, some English teachers must have treated you horribly in your time here. From your posting I presume you have been off the island a few years, yet you still seem MASSIVELY butthurt and never miss an opportunity to take a cheap shot (no matter how irrelevant) back at them.

Let’s have it ChewEy, what happened? You can come clean now, getting this off your chest might be very therapeutic, c’mon son, peel off the band aid…and tell us, what the hell did they do to you?

14

I think Jesus is more of a Desert Eagle kind of guy.

That, and some kind of street sweeper for going postal on y’all.

Deuce_Dropper 15

16

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.[/quote]

No, it’s all about getting ‘granular’ - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.

What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It’s a whole lot easier to bash people when you’ve turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it’s easy to destroy them.

People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.

If you’re not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you’re upset, I understand. It’s cathartic. Whack away.

But, let’s not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.

17

Don’t hate teachers and certainly enjoyed drinking with a few in Taipei. Just think the profession for foreigners should be highly regulated in Taiwan to make sure that Canadian P.T. Barnum types with no teaching credentials stay away and don’t shape the minds of vulnerable poorer populations. Bring over non-union but certified teachers not backpackers/coffee baristas. Holy shit. I’m taking a very left wing position here. :laughing: :laughing:

18

[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”][quote=“Deuce Dropper”]

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.[/quote]

No, it’s all about getting ‘granular’ - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.

What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It’s a whole lot easier to bash people when you’ve turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it’s easy to destroy them.

People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.

If you’re not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you’re upset, I understand. It’s cathartic. Whack away.

But, let’s not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.[/quote]

Where is the conflict? I am simply asking why ‘Ideals’ and ‘Platforms’ (as in the title) are portrayed in such contrasting ways. Not looking for a few self-satisfying whacks, and if anything you came into this thread with a bit of beef and perhaps a bone to pick, so it might be wise to take a bit of your own advice (unless this was a crafty sarcastic example of further hypocrisy and if that is the case, I applaud you for guile).

19

[quote=“Homey”]The guns and religion crowd are an interesting group. I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?[/quote]

UZI.

20

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”][quote=“Got To Be Kidding”][quote=“Deuce Dropper”]

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.[/quote]

No, it’s all about getting ‘granular’ - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.

What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It’s a whole lot easier to bash people when you’ve turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it’s easy to destroy them.

People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.

If you’re not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you’re upset, I understand. It’s cathartic. Whack away.

But, let’s not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.[/quote]

Where is the conflict? I am simply asking why ‘Ideals’ and ‘Platforms’ (as in the title) are portrayed in such contrasting ways. Not looking for a few self-satisfying whacks, and if anything you came into this thread with a bit of beef and perhaps a bone to pick, so it might be wise to take a bit of your own advice (unless this was a crafty sarcastic example of further hypocrisy and if that is the case, I applaud you for guile).[/quote]

What ‘beef’ or ‘bone’ would I have to pick with you?

Would you believe that I really wasn’t being sarcastic?

And yes, there is conflict. It’s inherent in the subject that you chose, and in some of what you said.

You ask the question about hypocrisy. You can’t call it hypocrisy until you’ve thoroughly examined the motives of either side, and when you do that, the issue gets a lot more complicated.

The only way to understand the issue is to get down to the level of the individual. Of course, when you get down to the level of the individual, you find out that ‘Liberal’ and ‘Conservative’ are false dichotomies.