Tag Archives: hypocrisy

I’m Not a Hypocrite

I ran across a post over on Godless Mama’s blog, where she describes a number of things, apparently that she’s seen, that she describes as hypocritical.  I’ll be the first one to agree that hypocrisy runs rampant online and that people from all groups can and often are guilty of it.  That said, and I know this wasn’t aimed at me, but I wanted to go through her list and see what I thought of the various ideas she’s come up with from my personal perspective.  I am not a hypocrite. Note, I’m not saying she’s wrong by any means because I’ve seen this kind of hypocrisy online, but this is my take:

You spend a lot of time defending Milo Yiannopolous and Richard Spencer under the banner of “we have to protect even the most offensive speech,” but did not defend Kathy Griffin’s mock ISIS photo under the banner of “we have to protect even the most offensive speech.”

There is a difference between defending a person’s right to speak, which I think applies every bit to Yiannopolous and Spencer and Griffin, and defending a person from the consequences of that speech.  Milo and Kathy lost their jobs because of their chosen speech.  That was up to their employers and they had every right to make those decisions.  So long as no one tries to stop their ability to speak, I’m fine with it.  Actions have, and should have, consequences.

You chastise others for their echo chambers and admonish them to engage with to their opponents, but block people who disagree with you on Facebook and Twitter.

I don’t block anyone, anywhere, unless it becomes painfully obvious that they are incapable of having any kind of intelligent discussion or debate, or they’re just a troll.  Then again, I use neither Facebook nor Twitter, so I don’t think this applies to me regardless.

You have ever said “fuck your feelings” with regard to perceived political correctness, but lamented the lack of respect shown to Mike Pence when he was booed at a Broadway show.

I couldn’t care less about feelings.  The only thing I would say about said Broadway show was a lack of respect for people who paid good money to see a production, not a political attack.  If I paid to see a movie and instead, we got a political diatribe from the actors, I’d be rightfully pissed off.  These are supposed to be professional actors who were paid to put on a play, not to rant about political topics.

You were horrified by the evangelical Christian trend of “purity balls” but laud hijab as a feminist symbol.

I’m not really bothered by purity balls, I think they’re stupid because I find Christianity to be stupid, but if people want to voluntarily put them on, I don’t think they actually hurt anything.  Nor do I really care what clothes people choose to voluntarily wear.  Note, I said voluntarily.  If it is imposed on them under threat of violence or punishment, that’s a different matter altogether.

You supported the Benghazi investigations but oppose the Trump-Russia investigation.

I don’t oppose investigating anything for which there is evidence.  Remind me when there was any evidence whatsoever for Trump-Russia again?  This is just more butt-hurt nonsense from the political left because they can’t believe they lost the election.  On the other hand, Hillary admits that she violated the law by having a personal e-mail server and deleting e-mails.  There is evidence for that.

It bothered you that Richard Spencer lost his gym membership, but you think LGBT couples should just find another bakery.

I don’t think either is true.  All businesses must follow the same public accommodation laws.  I don’t think the gym should have been able to deny Richard Spencer a membership unless they could show that his being on the premises constituted either a public safety risk or a demonstrable hazard to their continued existence as a business.  Bakeries are in business to make cakes.  They are not in business to make moral pronouncements about their customers.

You criticize western feminists who talk about sexist imagery in comics for overly frivolous concerns, but complain about women-only screenings of the film Wonder Woman.

Again, public accommodation laws.  You cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or creed.  Alamo was discriminating, which should not be acceptable, period.  The same goes for hotels that set up floors for just women.  That’s discrimination.  Now Alamo said that men, if they wanted the same experience, they could pay for a private screening.  So could women.  Therefore they are having a double standard based on gender, the very definition of discrimination.

You called the people who were outraged when Trump bragged about grabbing women’s genitals without their permission “snowflakes,” but not the people who were outraged when Colin Kaepernick didn’t stand for the national anthem.

People have a right to free speech and that includes not standing for the national anthem.  Again, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.  Nobody  called the anti-Trump whiners snowflakes because they didn’t have the right to be upset, but because they chose something essentially meaningless to get upset over, something the are still doing regarding Trump to this day.  I’d say the same thing to people who got upset over Kaepernick’s perfectly legal decision not to stand.  Now Kaepernick’s employers could and did choose not to continue his contract, which was entirely their right to do, just as the American people could have chosen not to elect Trump over his comments, which they didn’t do.

You were more bothered by Michelle Obama’s bare arms than by Melania Trump’s nudity.

Can’t remember caring about either, sorry.

You characterize Milo Yiannopolous as “just a troll” but an anti-Trump D-list comedian as “a Leftist celebrated public figure.”

Never said either.  In fact, I did criticize Milo for being a troll.  I don’t think people should troll anyone at all for any reason, period.  I find the whole practice utterly idiotic.  But there is a difference between saying mean things and putting out pictures of yourself holding the severed head of the President of the United States.  Threatening the President is a class E felony under Title 18.  I don’t care if Kathy thought it was a joke, it was a really stupid thing to do.

You dismiss non-binary concepts of gender as not based in science, but defended the “Penis as Social Construct” hoax by saying even if this hoax didn’t debunk the field of gender studies, it doesn’t matter because everyone knows a better hoax would have.

I think hoaxes and trolling are idiotic, period.  The whole “Penis as Social Construct” thing was funny because it showed just how idiotic these snowflakes actually are, that they took it at all seriously.  We have only to look at very real papers, like “Glaciers, Gender, and Science” which showed up in Progress in Human Geography, to see that.  All someone has to do is throw out an article that agrees with their preconceived notions and they’ll embrace it uncritically.  Ideology means more than reality to these people.

You oppose legal abortion but support the death penalty.

I support both.  But is it hypocritical to support legal abortion and oppose the death penalty?

You said jokes about the death of Roger Ailes were disrespectful of Ailes’s family, but you promote Sandy Hook truther Alex Jones or call criticism of Sean Hannity’s treatment of the Rich family “regressive.”

I really don’t care.  Roger Ailes was a dick.  So is Alex Jones.  So is Sean Hannity.  Any criticism that is decried because it makes someone feel bad is absurd.  It only matters if the criticism is valid.

You claim to oppose Islam on behalf of the women it oppresses, but promote personalities who deny the existence of date rape or who call for white women to be publicly flogged for sexual impropriety.

I oppose Islam because it’s an idiotic belief system that harms people.  And I don’t see anyone who says that date rape doesn’t happen, I do see people who argue that retroactive “rape” is ridiculous, where women who decide, after the fact, that they changed their mind and therefore they got raped when they consented at the time of the act, is about the stupidest thing imaginable.

You deny that Western colonialism turns Muslims into Islamists, but claim that too much political correctness turns white people into racists.

No, Islam turns Muslim into Islamists.  Violence is part and parcel with Islam, as it is with Christianity. That people can choose to ignore large swaths of their religious beliefs because it interferes with the culture and society in which they live isn’t excusing Islam, it’s showing how little religion actually matters to believers.

You spent weeks or months condemning the Richard Spencer punch and holding it up as evidence of pervasive violence on the Left, but justified, laughed at, or remained silent when a conservative politician assaulted a journalist and deny it is indicative of a violence problem on the Right.

Violence is never called for, no matter who performs it, especially as a response for free speech.  The only opposition to free speech that we ought to permit is more free speech.  But where I haven’t personally seen people celebrating Greg Gianforte body slamming Ben Jacobs, the same cannot be said of the left, who have turned the sucker punching of Richard Spencer into a celebrated meme.

You spend more time worrying about the threat to free speech posed by Ann Coulter being dis-invited from speaking at a college campus than you do about a citizen being convicted and imprisoned for laughing at a government official (or a bill that would send teenagers to federal prison for sexting, or a journalist being arrested for asking a government official a question, or state legislatures passing laws criminalizing peaceful protests).

Limiting free speech by any government entity is a violation of people’s constitutional rights, period. That means that people should never be disinvited to speak at publically funded colleges, nor should they be jailed for exercising their free speech rights to laugh at politicians or any of the other things you mentioned.

You declare the importance of seeing people as individuals rather than as collectives while making hasty generalizations about feminists, Muslims, Democrats, Leftists, etc.

Maybe people should stop joining these collectives if they don’t want to be tarred by their negatives?  Maybe people should stop being offended when people object to things that these groups do. That’s really the biggest problem with collectivism, that the second someone criticizes a label, the people who wear that label, even if they are not guilty of the criticism, get upset that someone said something mean about their label.  I mean personally, you can say all the mean things you want about atheism or conservatism you want, it won’t bother me at all unless the things you say directly describe a position that I hold.

You speak out against anti-LGBT attitudes embraced by conservative Christians, but file anti-LGBT attitudes among Muslims under “cultural differences.”

I find both reprehensible.  Of course, the only people who are accepting anti-LGBT attitudes among Muslims tend to come from the political left, people that I generally oppose.  But I also oppose the religious right, so I’m an equal opportunity critic.

You denigrate the boycott of Sean Hannity’s advertisers in response to his treatment of the Rich family as a regressive leftist attack for “wrong think,” but were supportive or silent when conservatives boycotted Beauty and the Beast for having a gay character (or Hamilton because the cast addressed Mike Pence; or Budweiser, 84 Lumber, CocaCola, Airbnb, Kia, and Tiffany for airing SuperBowl ads with pro-diversity messages; or Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka Trump’s clothing line; or Netflix for having a show called Dear White People; or Starbucks for having insufficiently Christian holiday coffee cups; or Hawaii because a federal judge there ruled against Trump’s travel ban; or Target for encouraging trans people to use their restroom of choice; or Target again for banning loaded guns in its stores; or ABC for cancelling Last Man Standing; or . . .  )

People can boycott anything they want, for any reason they want.  Boycotts don’t work.  They tend to happen when people cannot address the problems that they identify on the other side of the political spectrum.  Now of course, people can do what they choose to do with their money and can choose to buy or not buy products based on any criteria they like.  I just object to it when it goes beyond being an organic, individual effort and turns into mob justice.  Mob justice sucks.

So there are my answers.  Keep in mind, I am not being critical of Godless Mama in any way, shape or form for pointing out this hypocrisy, I think she’s identified some excellent points and people ought to think about why they get offended by some things and not others.  Hypocrisy is not something anyone should be proud of.  It is something that people ought to try to excise from their lives and far too often, unfortunately, do not.  But this is where being skeptical needs to be a part of your character, not something you apply here but not there, because it might offend your political sensibilities.  That’s something that’s a bigger problem than most people want to admit.


Liberal Hypocrites

This has come up a lot lately, where you will have liberals, and it is only liberals that I see this in, who will hold a double standard on something, based on whether they like the person or the group involved.

This came up most recently in a discussion about taxes, with a self-professed liberal whining long and hard that Donald Trump didn’t pay taxes for some period of time.  I pointed out that everything he did was legal and, let’s be honest, most poor people don’t pay any taxes either and I don’t hear him whining about that.  Then he twice… TWICE, ignored my point about the poor and instead of acknowledging that what both do is legal, he started saying that tax laws were written specifically to “suppress” the poor, and anyone wealthy who followed the same tax laws was criminal scum.  That’s kind of where I gave up.

But you get the same kind of thing over the recent Milo Yiannopolis debacle when you start asking why Milo can say something stupid about pedophilia, but liberal Lena Dunham can do the same thing and not suffer any negative repercussions from it.  You didn’t see the political left screaming that Dunham should never work in Hollywood again.  Where Milo just talked about pedophilia in general terms, Dunham admits to actually engaging in sexual activity with her sister.  But no… liberals would never demand the same thing from someone on their side, would they?

There’s a certain degree of hypocrisy in virtually everything I see the political left do.  I’m not saying you never see it from the right because, as I say constantly, the right is more liberal today than it is conservative, but it’s something I constantly see from the left.  Trump is a liar!  But we’re not going to point out that Hillary was a bigger liar or anything because she’s on their side.

So why is this?  If you have any insight, please post it in the comments. I’m really interested in hearing what people think.

Musings on Iran and Hypocrisy

This week, at least this week as I write this, there’s a huge bruhaha going on, especially on the right, about Iran taking custody of 10 U.S. sailors after their ship underwent mechanical problems in Iranian territorial waters.  Of course, Iran immediately said that the sailors were treated well and would be returned promptly, and after less than 24 hours, they were sent on their way home, but never let a minor event not be an opportunity to attack Obama or anything, which is exactly what the idiots on the far right did.

They started screaming that Iran was taking advantage of the U.S. because of Obama’s weak leadership.  Now I’m no fan of Obama, I think he’s a complete asshole, but come on, let’s try to be realistic here.  Iran didn’t arrest American sailors and throw them into captivity without charges or trial for over a decade or anything.  Who has done that?  Oh wait, AMERICA HAS!  But no, they don’t talk about that, do they?  What’s really going on here is an irrational hate-on for Iran and for Obama as well. They don’t care if it makes any sense, they just waste no opportunity to attack either and impugn the motives of either because both must be mustache-twirling evil.  These people are idiots.

One only has to listen to our now-defunct podcast in recent months to see my views on the irrational hatred of Iran.  They’re not nice by any means but they’re sure a lot better than some of our so-called “friends” and “allies” in the Middle East.  You know, like Saudi Arabia, who actively hates the U.S., supplied the vast majority of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, and routinely engage in horrific crimes against humanity, yet America supported them to head the U.S. council on human rights. Yeah, those people.  The only reason we do it is because they have oil and are strategically located.  They are animals, only a few steps below ISIS, yet they’re our bestest buds.

So anyhow, our sailors are now on their way home without incident but the crazies on the right are still whining about how horrible it is, yet if we had done the same thing with an Iranian boat, we sure wouldn’t have let them go in a day, we’d have thrown them into some dark prison somewhere, assuming they had to be spying on us.  Americans are hypocrites and that goes for both the left and right wing.  Before we start casting aspersions on the actions of other nations, how about we take a good look at our own and see what we’re doing wrong?

Environmental Hypocrisy on the Left

Wait in the car, keep the engine running, I’ll be right back.

I love how you get the crazies on the environmental left who scream that the sky is falling, they try to get laws passed that hurt people, so long as they “save the planet”, but none of these people are really buying the crap they’re peddling.  They’re not out there living off the land, they’re not producing zero emissions, they’re polluting as much, if not more than anyone around them, but they can because they’re rich.

So take SB 350, a California bill that would have required Californians to cut our gasoline usage in half by 2030, among other things.  They were going to put it in the hands of the AQMD, the air management board, with no explanation for how this might actually be done. The reality is, they could never achieve it without either draconian gas rationing, putting a transponder on your car to track how much and where you drive, or by raising taxes to such a degree that nobody could afford to drive.  Luckily, there were enough Californians who saw through that impending disaster that they insisted their representatives remove that part from the bill, but the rest still got passed by Governor Moonbeam. But the people responsible?  They’re just trying to buy votes from the crazy liberals in San Francisco, they really don’t care about the message at all.

So sponsor Senator Kevin De Leon goes to the official media event for this bill that’s supposed to clean up the air by providing more electric cars, then leaves his chauffeured Chevy Suburban running for more than 2.5 hours so the air conditioning will be on when he gets  back in the car.  Sure, that’s ecologically responsible, isn’t it? Governor Jerry Brown left the event to get on an airplane that dumps 100 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every mile flown. These people do not care about the environment.

And they claim they want to put more electric cars on the road with more charging stations in poor neighborhoods, when they are already claiming that too many people bought electric cars and the gas tax isn’t collecting enough money to keep the roads repaired.  It isn’t like they actually used any of the gas tax money to maintain the roads now, but hey, give them more money! Their only real choice is to either jack up the gas taxes again, already among the highest in the nation, or to start charging people who bought electric cars and hybrids money.  And how can they justify that  because these vehicles don’t use any real separate consumables.  You plug your car in.  You can certainly put a tax on the electricity but how do you determine what’s going to cars and what’s not?  So do you just charge everyone more for their power?  That’ll go over well.  And what about the people who put solar panels on their roofs and are living entirely off the grid?  What then?  They already have the power companies complaining that they’ve lost too many customers already and want to raise rates for the rest of us, in fact, they even want to charge people who aren’t consuming any power at all to pay money to the power companies to keep them afloat.  None of this is economically feasible no matter how you spin it.

If these people aren’t willing to walk the walk as they talk the talk, why should they expect the rest of us to?  They aren’t leading the way, they’re playing “do as I say, not as I do”.   It amazes me that people can’t see what’s coming down the road at them, that what they’re saying out of the left side of their mouth makes no sense when compared to what’s coming out the right. They want to get gas-powered cars off the road, but with fewer gas powered cars, they can’t afford to keep up the roads. They want people to use clean, renewable energy, but when they do, the coffers of the big energy companies, which the government of California lives in their pockets, lose money and we can’t have that.  Why does no one listen and point out the gross hypocrisy of the environmental left?  Because the left has no clue and no brains.

Utopian Dreams

utopia2It wasn’t too long ago that I wrote about the failure of liberals to recognize their own faults and short-comings, but these things keep coming up and I find it important to address them.  I really find this funny but when I talk to liberals about personal and fiscal responsibility, the first thing they say is “not everyone is responsible” as though that’s a reason not to push for a world where people actually are.  I’ve had them call me a dreamer, implying that all I’m doing is engaging in wishful thinking, but isn’t that the same thing they do on a regular basis?  After all, if the world really was the way that anyone wanted it to be, why would they keep fighting to change it?  If everyone was responsible, what would be the point of advocating for it?  It’s a goal, one that I think that if it were adopted, would solve many of the problems we see in society today.  I don’t pretend that we already have it, nor that it will be an easy position for society to accept.

But isn’t that the same thing that liberals do when they push for their “color-blind, gender-blind, orientation-blind” utopia? They want something that does not currently exist.  Is it a rational response to say “not everyone is non-sexist or non-racist” and leave it at that?  If makes no sense whatsoever to say that because some people are irresponsible, that we ought to throw up our hands and concede defeat.  We don’t do that with murderers.  We don’t pretend that because some people are going to kill others, that we shouldn’t try to do something about it, at the very least, punish these people who violate social dictates.  We don’t do that with child molesters.  Yes, a certain minuscule percentage of people are going to always molest children but we hold the ones that do accountable for their actions and punish them.  Why shouldn’t we hold the irresponsible accountable for their actions as well?  Liberals don’t like that because they don’t want to hold anyone accountable, except for the imaginary crimes of wealthy white men, those people they’re willing to point the finger at whether they’re actually demonstrably guilty of anything or not. The fact remains, we don’t have a utopia where nobody murders and nobody molests children.  Most of us would like to live in such a world and we do make efforts to get closer to that utopian paradise, even if we’ll never actually get there.  These are dreams, but they are dreams we all have and they are not unreasonable to want.  So why is it so absurd to suggest that we should be working toward a culture where people are held accountable for their actions and the expectation is personal and fiscal responsibility?  Why is it a pie-in-the-sky fantasy when conservatives do it but not when liberals do it?

Because they’re totally blind to their own failings and hypocrisies, that’s why.  I don’t see that changing any time soon.

History Isn’t Sexist

intolerant-liberal-hypocriteI recently had a kerfluffle with an Internet liberal feminist, although even though she self-identified as a feminist first and foremost, it could have been with any number of social justice warriors on the far left.  I responded to her demand that we as a society do more to recognize and celebrate the contributions that women have made to history and science.  I questioned her further and she also agreed that “people of color” and “homosexuals” ought to be equally lauded for what they’ve done for the world.  Hey, great, I have no problem with that, we ought to celebrate everyone who makes their mark in the world and helps the planet be a better place to live.

That was, until I asked her what skin color, gender and sexual orientation actually had to do with some of these discoveries. Take Alan Turing for example.  He was a brilliant mathematician who became the father of modern computer science. I probably couldn’t be writing this article if it weren’t for Turing.  There is no doubt that he was a genius and set the stage for significant improvements and innovations for mankind, but… what did his sexual orientation have to do with his work?  What is it about the work he did that couldn’t have been done had he been straight.  His homosexuality had absolutely no bearing on his historically significant work.  So why do these liberals spend so much time focusing on things that had no impact whatsoever on the ideas, inventions and innovations that we remember them for?

The same can be said of famous black scientists whose scientific accomplishments had fuck all to do with their being black.  Or female historical figures whose gender meant nothing to their feats.  These people are remembered fondly for their actions, not their genetic attributes.  The idea that we have a “Black History Month” or a “Woman’s History Month” or whatever to pay special attention to the skin color or gender of people whose actions had nothing whatsoever to do with their skin color or gender is really quite absurd.  When do we get to have a “Mustache History Month” to pay homage to those who were historically notable and just so happened to have a mustache?

Of course, this was right about when she started calling me a racist and a sexist and ran away to be comforted in some feminist “safe space” where she didn’t have to actually think about the absurdity of her belief system.  That doesn’t make my questions invalid though.  We don’t give special attention to people with blue eyes or big feet, why should we give special attention to people with dark skin or who are attracted to the same gender?  You know, for people who proclaim that they want equality for all (even though they clearly don’t), they sure want people on their side to feel special and get extra recognition.

The fact is, history is made by people.  Not black people, not white people, not males and not females.  It isn’t made by gays or straights.  It’s made by people who went out and did something worthwhile.  Marie Curie didn’t discover radium because she had a vagina.  George Washington Carver didn’t discover amazing things to do with peanuts because he was black.  His brilliance came from inside, not from his skin color.

I honestly have no idea why the liberal SJW crowd can’t get this through their tiny little heads.  To them, everything is race. Everything is gender.  Everything is sexuality.  They cannot imagine a world where people are not seen first and foremost for their physical characteristics instead of being acknowledged for their skill and intelligence and ingenuity.  That doesn’t matter to them, no matter how many times they pretend that it does.  They spend all of their time looking for excuses to blame racism and sexism, to proclaim that there must be discrimination against those who do not perform well instead of just acknowledging that when it comes to merit, you actually have to earn it.  These people don’t want to earn anything, they just want to be granted special rights and abilities and recognition because of how they look.

If you want to know the real racists and sexists and bigots, you have to look no further than the social justice warriors in the liberal camp.  History isn’t sexist or racist, you liberal morons, you are!

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #68

Bitchspot Report New Icon

The crazies are coming out of the woodwork!  This week, Rick Wiles is afraid of the Illuminati!  Blasphemy laws suck.  Gary Bauer complains that Obama is obsessed with gay issues at a conference that exists to complain about gay issues.  Ken Ham’s Ark Park is dead in the water and it’s dragging down the rest of Answers in Genesis with it.  Plus, we look at optimism and pessimism to see which approach works better and find out neither of us is all that optimistic.  What are you waiting for, get ‘er done!

Hopeless Waste of Time

Sometimes, posts on other blogs will spark something I want to touch on, but it’s even rarer when it’s not blog posts, but responses to blog posts, that specifically make me want to comment.

In response to this article, a commenter here said this:

I also think your questions were excellent and pertinent. This whole blog is very well written and I’m glad someone has touched on the “guilt” some of us have for living with parrots at all. It’s kind of a catch 22 because we certainly cannot release them but we can choose to adopt rather than purchase a baby if we decide to expand our flocks – or begin one. Reduced demand is the only thing that will slow down breeding and reducing breeder output is the only thing that will will reduce the number of “un-homed” parrots. “Do as I say, not as I do” is always a tricky sentiment but that’s pretty much what those of us with parrots are expressing when we try to enlighten the uninitiated and share our qualms about parrots in captivity. Our parrots are very well cared for and they have known no other life but I can’t help feel it’s still not quite right and the number of parrots in sanctuaries would seem to bear this out.

Continue reading Hopeless Waste of Time