Political Hypocrisy - Is it real?

i should add, for a example on the right, that i always found it odd that people can be against abortion and for the death penalty
 
I wanted to discuss an issue that was brought up in the Kim/Trump thread. That of Political and Ideological hypocrisy.

In it I stated that I have certain stances that would go against the political ideologies of the belief system of my Political Party. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Also after 17 years in the military I left early instead of retiring out at 20 and now have VA Benefits in the form of Disability and health care due to my Combat Tours. Yet I am a conservative and hate all things state run welfare. Am I a hypocrite?

These questions weigh heavily on me and I find there is no clear cut answer.
No, not being perfectly aligned with your party isn't hypocritical, just human. It's hypocritical when your party purports to adhere to certain principles and then violates them daily, mostly for the sake of personal gain, e.g. tax cuts and running up a deficit yet supposedly fiscally conservative, being the party of family values while everyone and their dogs are having affairs and no one cares, moaning about "thinking of the children" while robbing them of their future, and so on.
 
You can't really have one without the other. It's hard to say:

"I'm a feminist and support religious freedom, even if that religion oppresses the people I'm fighting for."

...without looking like a complete doughnut.
So, are you saying is that it's wrong to stick to the principle that people should be allowed to believe things that you don't agree with?
 
i should add, for a example on the right, that i always found it odd that people can be against abortion and for the death penalty


That one's easy. It's the difference between the innocence of the unborn and that of violent criminals. No real comparison other than than the termination of another life.
 
i should add, for a example on the right, that i always found it odd that people can be against abortion and for the death penalty
I always expected to see pro-life people outside of a cemetery and when the casket arrived they could tell them "You have Options!"
 
i should add, for a example on the right, that i always found it odd that people can be against abortion and for the death penalty

One is a punishment based on evil deed committed by the person being killed. The other is not. I'm against murder, but not against all war.
 
There's a pdf of the entire study online if you search for the title.

The article makes it clear that fgm is largely a practice done by and for women. The men have no say. Women do it to their daughters who do it to their daughters who do it to their daughters. I can't remember the exact numbers, but something like 90% of the men in those cultures are against the practice.

There is also a good deal of research about the benefits to societies when females are more selective with their mates. Both to males and females, but women, especially, benefit from driving up the scarcity of sex. In resource scarce environments, which the vast majority of places that practice fgm are, finding a well off husband isn't just a luxury, it can radically change the conditions of a family for GENERATIONS. If all of the women in a location are less willing to have sex, either the men have to offer more to get what they want or only the wealthy men will be able to get wives. Either way, that means women who grew up as dirt poor root farmers can marry into a situation where their kids and grandkids are likely to get educations and own businesses. It can take a family from the most extreme forms of poverty to a relatively first world life in just a couple generations. Of course, if one woman breaks the pact, the price of sex drops and the whole system fails and everyone remains in poverty. Which is why the people enforcing fgm typically don't fuck around.

^I don't remember if the above paragraph is discussed specifically in that study or if I'm drawing on other sources, but that is one explanation that's out there. I read that thing years ago, so I don't remember all the details.

The overall point is that you shouldn't assume that an entire village of people are just fuckin retards and cut off their daughters' clits for no reason. You think they just like watching their daughters bleed and cry? Even animals don't like to see their kids in pain. When I see a bizarre practice from another culture, or even just another person, I first try to imagine the logic that goes into it. Most of the time, their choice makes sense in context. Dismissing people is easy. Understanding them takes work.
According to this, the people practicing FGM are acting contrary to Islam,
"With this in mind, Dar al-Ifta convened an international conference in November 2006 on the topic of FGM. Participants included scientists, scholars of Islamic law, specialist researchers on the topic, and activists from civil rights organizations in Egypt and around the world. Upon hearing an array of presentations from across the spectrum, the conference concluded that the mutilation presently practised in some parts of Egypt, Africa and elsewhere represents a deplorable custom which finds no justification in the authoritative sources of Islam, the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad."
 
That one's easy. It's the difference between the innocence of the unborn and that of violent criminals. No real comparison other than than the termination of another life.
What about people that kill abortion doctors....
should they get the death penalty in states that are eligible? aren't they by that logic 'saving lives'?
 
Last edited:
What about people that kill abortion doctors....
should they get the death penalty in states that are eligible? aren't they by that logic 'saving lives'?


Not sure if this acknowledges the point. If so, I'm happy to philosophize further. Otherwise we should stay more focused.
 
I wanted to discuss an issue that was brought up in the Kim/Trump thread. That of Political and Ideological hypocrisy.

In it I stated that I have certain stances that would go against the political ideologies of the belief system of my Political Party. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Also after 17 years in the military I left early instead of retiring out at 20 and now have VA Benefits in the form of Disability and health care due to my Combat Tours. Yet I am a conservative and hate all things state run welfare. Am I a hypocrite?

These questions weigh heavily on me and I find there is no clear cut answer.
I mean kind of. Don't forget that in terms of pay the military is pretty close to communism; which conservatives, and military members, openly mock.

edit: Also BAH for dependents kind of reminds me of welfare queens having more children for added benefits.

But this is coming from a bitter former sgt living in the barracks while married pfc's lived in houses in town, so take my opinion with a bitter grain of salt lol
 
Last edited:
I wanted to discuss an issue that was brought up in the Kim/Trump thread. That of Political and Ideological hypocrisy.

In it I stated that I have certain stances that would go against the political ideologies of the belief system of my Political Party. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Also after 17 years in the military I left early instead of retiring out at 20 and now have VA Benefits in the form of Disability and health care due to my Combat Tours. Yet I am a conservative and hate all things state run welfare. Am I a hypocrite?

These questions weigh heavily on me and I find there is no clear cut answer.

Seems you can think for yourself and don´t just toe the party line because muh tribe. A positive in my book. Very few people align 100% with their political party unless they are mindless drones. People generally vote for the party that has the same core values or most of them. In the US that choice is limited to 2, so naturally you will have some views that differ.
 
So, are you saying is that it's wrong to stick to the principle that people should be allowed to believe things that you don't agree with?

They can do whatever they want. I'm free to call them out on their laughably contradictory stances though.
 
According to this, the people practicing FGM are acting contrary to Islam,
"With this in mind, Dar al-Ifta convened an international conference in November 2006 on the topic of FGM. Participants included scientists, scholars of Islamic law, specialist researchers on the topic, and activists from civil rights organizations in Egypt and around the world. Upon hearing an array of presentations from across the spectrum, the conference concluded that the mutilation presently practised in some parts of Egypt, Africa and elsewhere represents a deplorable custom which finds no justification in the authoritative sources of Islam, the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad."

Yeah, in the study I posted, they mentioned that FGM is cultural, not religious.
 
Yet it's a very common stereotype that it's a Muslim thing.
Not without reason given that it happens to be more prevalent in Muslim countries. And even though it doesn't necessarily originate in the Islamic tradition, that doesn't mean FGM isn't supported by it either. One of the reasons Islam was able to spread so effectively is that it was able to localize itself and part of that process is justifying certain preexisting cultural norms within an Islamic framework and that has happened to varying extents with FGM across the Muslim world.
 
There's a pdf of the entire study online if you search for the title.

The article makes it clear that fgm is largely a practice done by and for women. The men have no say. Women do it to their daughters who do it to their daughters who do it to their daughters. I can't remember the exact numbers, but something like 90% of the men in those cultures are against the practice.

There is also a good deal of research about the benefits to societies when females are more selective with their mates. Both to males and females, but women, especially, benefit from driving up the scarcity of sex. In resource scarce environments, which the vast majority of places that practice fgm are, finding a well off husband isn't just a luxury, it can radically change the conditions of a family for GENERATIONS. If all of the women in a location are less willing to have sex, either the men have to offer more to get what they want or only the wealthy men will be able to get wives. Either way, that means women who grew up as dirt poor root farmers can marry into a situation where their kids and grandkids are likely to get educations and own businesses. It can take a family from the most extreme forms of poverty to a relatively first world life in just a couple generations. Of course, if one woman breaks the pact, the price of sex drops and the whole system fails and everyone remains in poverty. Which is why the people enforcing fgm typically don't fuck around.

^I don't remember if the above paragraph is discussed specifically in that study or if I'm drawing on other sources, but that is one explanation that's out there. I read that thing years ago, so I don't remember all the details.

The overall point is that you shouldn't assume that an entire village of people are just fuckin retards and cut off their daughters' clits for no reason. You think they just like watching their daughters bleed and cry? Even animals don't like to see their kids in pain. When I see a bizarre practice from another culture, or even just another person, I first try to imagine the logic that goes into it. Most of the time, their choice makes sense in context. Dismissing people is easy. Understanding them takes work.

The section on FGM is quite short. They cite a couple of anecdotal books to support that women are the ones doing the procedures (with "a dubious or wrong justifications for it"), that mothers and fathers have a say in the matter, and 1 study in which they surveyed 300 polygamous Sudanese men (tiny sample size with more confounds than I can count, this is an inherent problem with these types of studies).

"Thus, subincision and infibulation do not seem conducive to male sexual pleasure. They might of course help ensure wifely fidelity by impairing the wife’s capacity to enjoy extramarital sex. Yet, men’s preference for sexually intact women speaks against the male control theory."

I don't think this conclusion is warranted from the evidence provided. Sexual pleasure is not the only determinant of male's attitude towards FGM, this is a red herring. The fact that a man would want to have sex with a more proceptive woman does not mean he wouldn't want a loyal FGM'd wife at home while he's out gathering scarce resources. Thus the society has a high prevalence of FGM to attract a desirable mate (it would fit your own resource explanation for the practice).

The practice also correlates with prevalence of violence against women, rape, degree of inequality between sexes, women's educational attainment, etc in those societies. And if you couple that with the research on reproductive control and intersex competition in sexually dimorphic species (like us), I don't think a survey on sexual preference of 300 Sudanese men is enough to validate toleration and justification of said practice.

The fact that women are the ones in control of the practice could just as well mean that they're trying to get the best outcome out of a very shitty hand dealt. Sort of like Southerners thinking slaves were jolly and content when they would sing during their labor.

I did not call any culture retarded. I'm all for scholarship and explanation of peculiar cultural phenomena. I'm not arguing whether it serves a perceived function in social and reproductive dynamics (I'd bet that human sacrifice also served a perceived societal purpose at one time or another). I'm just looking for a bit of consistency on what should a culture strive for when it comes to gender equality, human rights, body autonomy, etc. Don't you think there are better mechanisms to increase female selectivity? Seems like you and the cited feminist Germaine Greer are using a more nuanced version of "different culture, hard to judge" to rationalize why this practice should be justified and left alone for culture X, while much milder versions of female reproductive control are condemned for culture Y.
 
Back
Top