Is Hypocrisy A Liberal Celebrity Killer For You? Overlook It? (Colin Powell, generations)

[Glenfield]

I can usually separate the artist from the art, and I actually expect liberal celebrities to be hypocrites. The one problem is when an actor becomes so well known for their political stance, I may have a hard time seeing them in the role they're playing in a film or play. It's kind of like when an actor becomes typecast. So while Alec Baldwin is a great actor and I've loved a lot of his work, I can no longer imagine him as anything other than an angry liberal, and his work as an actor has no value for me anymore. As a result, I won't go see any of his movies, not because I disagree with his political views but because I can't accept him in any role other than Alec Baldwin, hot headed liberal.

[tjasse]

In what way does the book say Soros is a hypocrite? I always felt he had a pretty good integration of his philosophical views and his trading business.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I can usually separate the artist from the art, and I actually expect liberal celebrities to be hypocrites. The one problem is when an actor becomes so well known for their political stance, I may have a hard time seeing them in the role they're playing in a film or play. It's kind of like when an actor becomes typecast. So while Alec Baldwin is a great actor and I've loved a lot of his work, I can no longer imagine him as anything other than an angry liberal, and his work as an actor has no value for me anymore. As a result, I won't go see any of his movies, not because I disagree with his political views but because I can't accept him in any role other than Alec Baldwin, hot headed liberal.

I actually though that made is 30 Rock character especially funny. An obvious liberal playing a right wing republican businessman.

To the point, I think hypocrisy is a problem with the person's personal action goes against their professed beliefs. If Michael More is using non-union labor or tax loopholes is hypocritical, but it isn't a big deal if he is cheating on his wife (since he has never made the a core message). Conversely, it was hypocritical of Newt Gingrich to be cheating on his wife, while it is just expected that a professed anti-tax anti-union guy would look for (legal) ways to avoid taxes and unions.

[cwa1984]

Originally Posted by beb0p

Using your standard, the Pope would be a hypocrite to live in the Vatican. Any Christians who don't turn the other cheeks when I slap them are hypocrites too. In fact, any country who claim to be a Christian nation who actively engaged in warfare is a grand big hypocrite.

The Catholic Church is extremely hypocritical and lacks credibility with me. Considering the fact I'm not Catholic and view them as extremely hypocritical you won't find me defending them at all. As far as the warfare part goes wars are fought for a variety reasons and all nations regardless of faith and even when nations sponsor atheism they aren't innocent when it comes to warfare. Not being rude here but you have repeatedly given really bad analogies.

Originally Posted by beb0p

See how dumb this is? I think the people who actually cared this much are the biggest hypocrites of them all.

No to be honest. All I've seen are really bad analogies given to try and say it's all relative when that is not the case. You can't sit there and say something is wrong and evil and try to convince others of such while profiting off of what your preaching against while maintaining any form of credibility after the fact. That's why I gave Noam Chomsky as an example because the guy goes around the world playing the evil empire card in regards to the United States but will then turn around and work for the Pentagon. There is no credibility at all in that.

Originally Posted by beb0p

Which rich person is telling you to put solar panels on your house and telling you to drive a Tesla??????????????????????????????

I was using your an example as a demonstration of why your example is a really bad one that isn't relatable to the average person. As far as who tells us to put solar panels on our roofs that would be the whole environmentalist movement since they preach solar and wind instead of nuclear power like they should which unlike solar and wind nuclear could power the grid in the United States replacing coal and natural gas completely but I'm going off topic in regards to nuclear vs wind and solar so I'll stop it there.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by cwa1984

The Catholic Church is extremely hypocritical and lacks credibility with me. Considering the fact I'm not Catholic and view them as extremely hypocritical you won't find me defending them at all. As far as the warfare part goes wars are fought for a variety reasons and all nations regardless of faith and even when nations sponsor atheism they aren't innocent when it comes to warfare. Not being rude here but you have repeatedly given really bad analogies.

They not bad analogies at all, they are analogies that flew right over your head because you've already locked in to your position. The problem is not the analogies, it's the person interpreting it. And I've already said this, you have taken a far extreme position that basically renders common sense moot.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

No to be honest. All I've seen are really bad analogies given to try and say it's all relative when that is not the case. You can't sit there and say something is wrong and evil and try to convince others of such while profiting off of what your preaching against while maintaining any form of credibility after the fact. That's why I gave Noam Chomsky as an example because the guy goes around the world playing the evil empire card in regards to the United States but will then turn around and work for the Pentagon. There is no credibility at all in that.

It's called real life. All I can say is, get used to it.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

I was using your an example as a demonstration of why your example is a really bad one that isn't relatable to the average person. As far as who tells us to put solar panels on our roofs that would be the whole environmentalist movement since they preach solar and wind instead of nuclear power like they should which unlike solar and wind nuclear could power the grid in the United States replacing coal and natural gas completely but I'm going off topic in regards to nuclear vs wind and solar so I'll stop it there.

Nowhere in my example did the rich person ever preached/demanded that you live like they do.
.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by cwa1984

It really boils down to having credibility. If you constantly go on writing books and making speeches about the military industrial complex and play the "evil empire card" in regards to the United States government around the world making a profit off that and then you willing go to work for the Pentagon you don't have any credibility. The same way some actors will go on about the environment and how bad it is and how the rich are exploiting everyone and how we all have to make sacrifices to save the planet. Yet they live in mansions, are part of the 1% crowd, take private jets and wear suits and dresses that cost more then most people make in a year to award shows. Basically what it comes down to is if your going to talk the talk then walk the walk. People can forgive and overlook some hypocrisy and contradiction. Yet when you have blatant hypocrisy people can't respect you or even take you seriously.

Credibility involves trusting the following the person rather than the idea. Why would you be under the assumption that someone you've never met has credibility to begin with? Why would something like credibility be relevant when discussing something like an argument regarding climate change, tax structures, etc.?

If the evidence is compelling, buy the argument. Credibility has nothing to do with it. I often hear people on forums like CD say things like "You've just lost all credibility." That makes no sense. We're all perfect strangers here, and there was no good reason for you to give me credibility to begin with.

[cwa1984]

Originally Posted by beb0p

They not bad analogies at all, they are analogies that flew right over your head because you've already locked in to your position.

No they didn't fly over my head and I gave counters to all your supposed points. You gave bad analogies almost in if not in an apologetic way to dismiss all hypocrisy whatsoever is having no meaning. That's just not how the world works. If a public figure whether a politician, famous athlete, movie star or well known business tycoon comes out for strong family values and states this country is in massive decline because it lacks strong family values. Yet this individual has had a massive history of sleeping around on his or her spouse and/or beating his or her children your just going to shake your head at the hypocrisy of the person. It's the same with my example of Noam Chomsky. He's a public figure that goes around the world criticizing the United States playing the evil empire card in regards to the US government selling books and getting paid to do speeches on the subject and then he turns around and willing works for the pentagon. When you do something like that your just a hypocrite and you lose all credibility in regards to what you were preaching.

Originally Posted by beb0p

The problem is not the analogies, it's the person interpreting it. And I've already said this, you have taken a far extreme position that basically renders common sense moot.

How is it extreme to expect others to practice what they preach? Essentially your argument boils down for public figures to go "do as I say not as I do" and you appear to be fine with that and find no contradiction with it.

Originally Posted by beb0p

It's called real life. All I can say is, get used to it.

I'm an adult I'm use to it that's why I rarely respect any public figure.

Originally Posted by beb0p

Nowhere in my example did the rich person ever preached/demanded that you live like they do.

You gave a horrible example which was the point I was getting at.

[cwa1984]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Credibility involves trusting the following the person rather than the idea. Why would you be under the assumption that someone you've never met has credibility to begin with?

Benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise? If someone tries to make an argument for something I won't say they lack credibility until I see that there argument is not believable or they are being flat out hypocrites. At that point they lose credibility. Until then I do try and give the benefit of the doubt and try to keep my bias to a minimum.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Why would something like credibility be relevant when discussing something like an argument regarding climate change, tax structures, etc.?

Why wouldn't it be? If someone is practicing what they preach their argument becomes stronger. If someone on the other hand is not practicing what they preach in regards to global warming saying we need to make sacrifices yet takes private jets all the time, lives in a huge mansion, has dozens of cars, etc then you just end up looking at that person and thinking "you go first". The average person sees that and they aren't going to make sacrifices since the person asking them to isn't bothering to do so in the first place.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

If the evidence is compelling, buy the argument. Credibility has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. If the person has no credibility in what they are arguing for you can't respect them and your not going to care about there argument. It's a giant downward cycle if people are arguing for something and lose credibility on the subject since more and more people will turn away from them and won't care about the argument.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I often hear people on forums like CD say things like "You've just lost all credibility." That makes no sense.

I can understand the sentiment if a poster is arguing a point and posts an argument that is not believable in any way, shape or form.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

We're all perfect strangers here, and there was no good reason for you to give me credibility to begin with.

Benefit of the doubt?

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by cwa1984

Benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise? If someone tries to make an argument for something I won't say they lack credibility until I see what there argument is not believable or they being flat out hypocrites. At that point they lose credibility. Until then I do try and give the benefit of the doubt and try to keep my bias to a minimum.

Why wouldn't it be? If someone is practicing what they preach there argument becomes stronger. If someone on the other hand is not practicing what they preach in regards to global warming saying we need to make sacrifices yet takes private jets all the time, lives in a huge mansion, has dozens of cars, etc then you just end up looking at that person and thinking "you go first". The average person sees that and they aren't going to make sacrifices since the person asking them to isn't bothering to do so in the first place.

It has everything to do with it. If the person has no credibility in what they are arguing for you can't respect them and your not going to care about there argument. It's a giant downward cycle if people are arguing for something and lose credibility on the subject since more and more people will turn away from them.

I can understand the sentiment if a poster is arguing a point and posts an argument that is not believable in any way, shape or form.

Benefit of the doubt?

None of this makes any sense to me. If I am trying to convince you that exercising is healthy, and I show you a bunch of studies that clearly demonstrate that exercise is healthy, it makes no difference whether I exercise in my own life. We don't need to go through this process of "I'll believe you until you lose credibility." The messenger's personal practices have nothing to do with the truth of the message.

Let's take your global warming example. The truth of whether global warming is real and presents a major impending threat has nothing to do with whether Al Gore flies on jet planes or not. There is no connection there. Therefore, it makes no sense to accept or reject the message of global warming based on Al Gore's personal practices. If it is in fact true that we all need to reduce our carbon footprint, the urgency of that is not affected by whether Al Gore personally reduces his carbon footprint (for example).

[cwa1984]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

None of this makes any sense to me.

I really don't know what to tell you if that is truly the case. I've been very clear so far in everything I stated and if your honestly not getting my points then there is nothing I can do to make my points any clearer.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

If I am trying to convince you that exercising is healthy, and I show you a bunch of studies that clearly demonstrate that exercise is healthy, it makes no difference whether I exercise in my own life.

Your ignoring (or maybe not understanding) all the points I was making previously with this example though. I'm talking about someone pushing an ideology like Noam Chomsky does about the US government yet at the same time while playing the evil empire card will go and work for the Pentagon is an extreme example of hypocrisy and why he lacks credibility in the things he says. The reason being is he ideologically doesn't practice what he preaches. Your going own about exercise not ideology which is what I was getting at before. Even my family values example was about ideology and you can say morals to.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

We don't need to go through this process of "I'll believe you until you lose credibility." The messenger's personal practices have nothing to do with the truth of the message.

It absolutely does if your trying to sell an ideological point which is what I've been getting at. If you tell me I need to cut back and make sacrifices in my life to save the planet yet you own a mansion (if not several), have a dozen sports cars, take private jets everywhere, and where suits that cost tens of thousands of dollars I literally can't take you seriously at all. The reason being is because someone like that is a hypocrite pure and simple and the level of there hypocrisy causes them to lose credibility with people.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Let's take your global warming example. The truth of whether global warming is real and presents a major impending threat has nothing to do with whether Al Gore flies on jet planes or not.

It does have to do with his personal practices if he is going to say we need to jack up my cost of living to help the environment by making me pay for inferior technology like wind turbines to help the environment instead of nuclear power which is extremely clean and much more efficient. Or if he tries to make have to support a cap and trade policy which will do nothing to help the environment and is just a giant ponzi scheme to milk the public for money. Yes, before you ask Al Gore was involved (not sure if he still is) with carbon credit nonsense.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

There is no connection there. Therefore, it makes no sense to accept or reject the message of global warming based on Al Gore's personal practices.

Actually I wasn't rejecting global warming I'm rejecting the idiotic solutions presented by people who don't and won't follow their own solutions they give and just want to use something like global warming to rip people off.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

If it is in fact true that we all need to reduce our carbon footprint, the urgency of that is not affected by whether Al Gore personally reduces his carbon footprint (for example).

The credibility of Al Gore and the environmental movement is really in there solutions to global warming which are very...mediocre to even harmful.