How is the accusation "You're a hypocrite" the weaker accusation against leftists compared to "You don't really believe what you're saying"?

[Haim Arlosoroff]

We all know that in reality, modern day leftism remains little more than window-dressing for the powerful and the power hungry alike to cloak their vindictiveness behind a shroud of piety. What was once a real morality, it only remains now as a relic sought by speakers hungrily for the power it once had as a living political movement. Truth be told it's all fake, just a dirge to mourn the passing of the 20th century's futile dream of a godless collectivism. A ghost dance. A pantomime.

Contrary to the assertion of hundreds of thousands of billboards and bumper stickers most progressives don't even believe the science when it concerns matters of race among other things. Progressives can't describe how equality would be actually possible or even what a better world looks like post a revolution of theirs. Most global warming activists don't actually think the world is over and few lucid minds actually think any global climate talks are going to discover any solutions. The transgender revolution isn't going to liberate humanity into a transhuman world of post-sexuality rather than into perversity. No one actually believes that there is some symmetrical arrangement of managing the relations between the sexes. No one actually believes any longer that they can abolish racism within their lifetimes.

​

Leftism is just a hollowed-out belief system that no longer makes sense by its own logic at the end of the day. Progressives simply don't want to admit that once the Parasocial interactions are removed, where progressive idealism ought to be there is simply a void.

​

• Is the phrase you're a hypocrite weak because it appeals to a centrist cultural referee, like an undecided voter, that does no longer actually exists?
• Or is the phrase you're a hypocrite weak because it grants a premise which progressives hope to hide above all others, that they can't still believe in their moral visions anymore?
• How is the accusation You're a hypocrite a weak accusation compared to You don't really believe what you're saying which always angers them?
• It's an odd linguistic mystery that has baffled me when speaking to progressives for the last decade, Can it really be true that every leftist is just afraid to let on that beneath all of their increasingly aggressive activism and shrill pronouncements they possess a distinct lack of conviction?

​

 

[Penis Drager]

Lay off the fart huffing.
Leftists are idiots but this comes off a lot like when religious groups try to claim "everyone knows in their hearts this is all true but they choose to reject it."
If you seek knowledge: address their claims and ask for elaboration.
If you seek victory: call them retards and get others to point and laugh.

You're not likely to convince them in either case. The only reasonable goal is to electrify your allies.

 

[Flea Man Marbles]

You're thinking way too hard about this. It's not worth it

 

[Haim Arlosoroff]

You're thinking way too hard about this. It's not worth it

I'm likely to argue with them again, and I'm just trying to understand how to argue with them better. It was decidedly a draw, and it ended with them hating me. They really didn't care about being called a hypocrite, but the lack of conviction really got to them. Should I just be defensive and make them prove their case?

Maybe I should just avoid talking politics at the bar. But I really want the catharsis, I have to repress myself at work over so many now-political topics.

You're not likely to convince them in either case. The only reasonable goal is to electrify your allies.

Is it at that point? We're just war dancing verbally?

 

[Penis Drager]

Is it at that point? We're just war dancing verbally?

It's not nearly that profound.
To change the heart is an exceptionally rare, and quite a beautiful thing. To shape the heart is a matter of getting them young and promising what seems denied to them. This is how the communists operate. This is how the Nazis operated. This is how every successful political movement in history has gotten anything done.

Welcome to the counter-culture. If you want to be effective, you are to instill distrust and mockery of the authorities among the youth. They will become the footsoldiers for revolution.

 

[Space_Dandy]

My God, what a truth bomb. You're spittin facts sir. I especially love the term 'godless collectivism,' I may have to use that. Also I love your montage with all of the naive progressives sticking their heads in the tiger's mouth so to speak.

 

[gang weeder]

I'm likely to argue with them again, and I'm just trying to understand how to argue with them better. It was decidedly a draw, and it ended with them hating me. They really didn't care about being called a hypocrite, but the lack of conviction really got to them. Should I just be defensive and make them prove their case?

Maybe I should just avoid talking politics at the bar. But I really want the catharsis, I have to repress myself at work over so many now-political topics.


Is it at that point? We're just war dancing verbally?

You won't change any minds so who cares. If you're going to bother arguing, just do it for the hell of it and have fun with it.

Anyways. Leftism is a religion so that's probably what you're getting at in your OP. Imagine telling a Christian he doesn't actually believe Jesus was the son of God. It's a similar type of interaction.

 

[Bonesjones]

Calling someone a hypocrit is just saying their actions aren't congruent with their belief. Saying someone doesn't believe in what they say or do is paralyzing to a cultist. It attacks their core personality or whatever they pretend to have. I just don't talk to them in general.

 

[Where's Waldo?]

It's really probably because, in their minds... they will rationalize "hypocrisy" as the side-effect of living in a world with problems. It's like exhaust coming out of an engine. "As long as your end-product is worth it, who fucking cares what you do?"
As long as the scales don't tip too far into doing something bad. Probably, they believe that some things can be corrected for, after the fact.
You know? It really also depends, like...

They mostly just want to feel good about themselves, so believing that they're doing something good is like their dream. If they have no drive, they don't go anywhere. If you point out somebody who is acting aimlessly, that is a harsher conviction than for something they believe they can 'make up afterwards'. If they have no road, there's nowhere to go.
Thus, even the hypocrisy would be unjustified, if they had no future vision. If they were just doing it, with no plan.

Like if a robber stole a bunch of lead from a factory. People would be pissed, right? If it was just the theft. ...but imagine he could turn that into gold, and then gave some to each person, and recompensated the factory for the loss in lead.
Some people have crazy dreams like that. If you would point out they can't actually fulfill that promise, it brings it all down.

The robber's just a crazy drunk, and he tells people he's gon' get them some gold. but he's so off his rocker, he actually believes he can make it.
You yell at him for stealing, that don't matter... because he'll make it up.
You yell at him for being crazy, now that pisses him off.


Alternatively, if you're accusing them of hypocrisy, it could be becuase both parties are engaging in the same behaviour... so they're playing a little game of chicken. They don't wanna give up something, if the other party won't give up the same thing. There might not be trust.

It all really depends on the situation. There can be a bajllion different motives for similar behaviour.

 

[The Ugly One]

The charge of hypocrisy doesn't work because you're saying he's not fully living up to his ideals. That may be true, but he's still a better person than you, so it doesn't sting. Like, "'oh no I'm not a perfect liberal, said the self-admitted Nazi." "You don't actually believe this shit" stings more (especially when it's true) because performative virtue is what they're always about. It's one thing to not perfectly adhere to my ideals, and another entirely for my claimed ideals themselves to just be an elaborate lie.

A lot of these people have deep self-doubt...do I really love niggers, faggots, and niggerfaggots as much as I say?

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Because they believe 'it's ok when we do it" so any accusation of hypocrisy is totally meaningless to them.

 

[Circular Square]

Hypocrisy as a sin used to be very shameful. It is still used in fact in order to publically shame people on the other side

Spoiler

Look at what this Republican is doing in the bedroom!?

But at the same time, hypocrisy is one of their strengths since consistency doesn't matter if whatever they believe about themselves is true in reality. Thus, when they defiantly claim something that isn't even true, and you see them get further deluded, you are no longer looking at rational people, but zealots.

Spoiler

Look at how strong and powerful they are to renounce beauty, honor, and dignity. How brave, how stunning!

 

[SwanSwanson]

I really dislike how left wing-ism has been associated with all this bullshit. As if all of these represent anti corporate stances and regular people owning their workplaces. I seriously wonder what will be the long term consequences for this odd mix up? I guess I can't blame people for this, anti woke leftists like me are incredibly rare.

 

[Haim Arlosoroff]

I guess I can't blame people for this, anti woke leftists like me are incredibly rare.

It is sadly rare. Leftism today is just a sacred relic bandied about to suggest the moral greatness of the speaker, and nothing more.

Everything which is less than completely explicit and/or blocks of text defeats the whole purpose of leftism today. Progressive idealism is an oxymoron, there is no implicit meaning or deeper understanding behind any of their stunts because they have all become mere acts of attention-seeking. Its as if the enemies of leftism have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams to turn leftism into a sort of skin that any demented serial killer seems to be able to adorn and dance about in.

It could be the fault of Occupy Wall Street since a lot of money from bankers were put into ESG scores and parades of the Sin of Pride thereafter in order to ensure Occupy never happened again. All that I know is that there is no sincerity in leftism as a movement, although I don't blame the sincere leftists for this. In 2020, its entirely submerged by the power-hungry using the language of the left to gain authority.

I wish that leftism could simply be class warfare to better the lot of the average American. But that would be Class Reductionist of me.

 

[WhatIsThePunchline]

I'm likely to argue with them again, and I'm just trying to understand how to argue with them better. It was decidedly a draw, and it ended with them hating me. They really didn't care about being called a hypocrite, but the lack of conviction really got to them. Should I just be defensive and make them prove their case?

Maybe I should just avoid talking politics at the bar. But I really want the catharsis, I have to repress myself at work over so many now-political topics.


Is it at that point? We're just war dancing verbally?

Because the one position that progressives still hold is 'we need to pretend we are better people than we are'. They need to maintain their lies because that's the only way they can keep self deceiving. If they can't their hollow worldview falls, and then they very quickly have to face what they've become. "You don't really believe the things you say" directly targets this.

There's an essay you should read: Vaclav Havel: Power of the Powerless

It talks about the absolute need for people laboring under a similar hollowed out worldview (late soviet communism) to cling to the rites and formalities that maintains it.

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in ihe manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's. real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestion~ ingly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome ihis complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with ihe workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

In 2020, progressives got to choose between murdering people or allowing their worldview to slip, if not fall. They elected to murder people. The guy who wrote that article got thrown in prison for four to five years. After which he became the president.

 

[Skitarii]

The only reasonable goal is to electrify your allies.

The only reasonable goal is to not engage and laugh at them from a distance

 

[Sho'nuff]

Politics and ideologies have become the new religion. These people whole identities, politics, and ideologies are completely based on a belief system. They believe they are right even though there is no supporting evidence.
Problem is that with religion, belief is the whole point, there isn't supposed to be evidence because knowing and believing are 2 completely separate constructs. When it comes to politics and ideologies, belief is dangerous because it's impossible to challenge with actual physical evidence. These are supposed to be moral opinions, which should be challenged and swayed, but it's been turned into a belief system which is impossible to challenge unless the person fundamentally allows it (another tenant of actual religion that isn't converted over).

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Was this thread a response to the latest Dave the Distributist video?
@Haim Arlosoroff

 

[Pickle Inspector]

Because virtue signalling and arguing in bad faith is incredibly common and I worry we’ve got to a point where people only care about the end result so will just ignore all hypocrisy on ‘their side’ as long as it gives them the desired result.

The reason I’m concerned is because I’m not sure if we’re at the point people will accept taking advantage of something like murder if it means getting their own way politically, for example here in the UK it’s accepted that if a politician is murdered then all the mainstream parties won’t stand an MP in the following by-election but would that still be the case if there was a vote on something extremely controversial that divided the left and right and that one vote might make a difference?

Similarly in America with Supreme Court judges, if there’s a controversial issue and one judge being replaced would sway the vote would a president take advantage of one being assassinated by an extremist by replacing them with someone who shares their ideology?

 

[Stan]

Don’t tell me what I think or believe, you sound like you’ve got your head up your ass