The problem is that none of these people really have any core integrity or beliefs outside of "I should always win and the people who I say are my enemies should lose." LOTT, the leftist equivalents, just want power and the ability to use it however they see fit, everything else is just aesthetic. Pointing out someone is a hypocrite really only works if they or their audience have a level of integrity to actually want to be in line with the values they espouse, but those values are simply the means to an end. If they don't play by their own rules, and neither do their audiences, the rules really only exist to hamstring anyone who tries to engage with them. You just have to constantly walk away and go "well it's Chinatown" as these people amass more and more power and hope you can keep your head down before they come for you.
My, and I think a lot of people's mistake is taking what they say at their word. Believing that they care about really anything they say they care about. But at the same time, what's the alternative? Just deeply distrust anything anyone says and never give anyone the benefit of the doubt? That's not a way to order society either.
I really like how you display an unbiased view of the whole situation. It’s nice to read an opinion piece that allows the freedom of thought, but also expresses the importance of critical thinking. Great read as always
“You can try to get people fired when they say things you don’t like or you can have a principled position that people shouldn’t be fired for political speech, but you can’t do both.”
I disagree that this is a binary choice. I oppose contemporary cancel culture because it is far too stifling and a tax on being interesting as you say. But does this mean, to invoke Godwin’s Law, that I must be opposed to the firing of literal Nazis? No, I simply think that a lot more opinions should be tolerated and accepted than they are today, including many I disagree with and am vehemently opposed to.
I don’t find the person who said they wished Trump died to be a hero. Yes, they are just giving voice to the dark part of many Democrats’ beliefs. But that’s not heroic.
You should be opposed to the firing of literal nazis. As long as convicted criminals are allowed to hold jobs it's retarded to fire people for having offensive views (unless by "literal nazi" you mean somebody who was forcing others into death camps).
Are you sure that wanting to protect democracy and wishing he was killed is consistent? Maybe you think that killing him would have led to worse results for democracy. It could have led to backlash, even violent backlash, that made democracy even more likely to be undermined.
I don't think it's only hypocrisy; it's also deontology. When Bill Maher condemned the sort of comments in question and said "liberals don't shoot people", he was articulating a deontic constraint on action. I doubt he'd see a moral incompatibility with wishing the guy would have a fatal heart attack.
I feel like your argument that types like LibsofTikTok are being hypocritical doesn’t work. There’s nothing hypocritical about her. She’s engaged in tribal politics, and there’s nothing hypocritical about advocating for canceling your political opponents and being against the canceling of your political allies. it’s the friend enemy distinction.
I guess than there's nothing hypocrite if a dissonant righotid got caught in a pedo case (hello Ali ALexander) while for years they blamed libs to own a giant pedo cabal.
The problem is that none of these people really have any core integrity or beliefs outside of "I should always win and the people who I say are my enemies should lose." LOTT, the leftist equivalents, just want power and the ability to use it however they see fit, everything else is just aesthetic. Pointing out someone is a hypocrite really only works if they or their audience have a level of integrity to actually want to be in line with the values they espouse, but those values are simply the means to an end. If they don't play by their own rules, and neither do their audiences, the rules really only exist to hamstring anyone who tries to engage with them. You just have to constantly walk away and go "well it's Chinatown" as these people amass more and more power and hope you can keep your head down before they come for you.
My, and I think a lot of people's mistake is taking what they say at their word. Believing that they care about really anything they say they care about. But at the same time, what's the alternative? Just deeply distrust anything anyone says and never give anyone the benefit of the doubt? That's not a way to order society either.
It's true!
I really like how you display an unbiased view of the whole situation. It’s nice to read an opinion piece that allows the freedom of thought, but also expresses the importance of critical thinking. Great read as always
Have to say I was disappointed by how thick that LOTT woman turned out to be. But it was instructive about tribal culture.
“You can try to get people fired when they say things you don’t like or you can have a principled position that people shouldn’t be fired for political speech, but you can’t do both.”
I disagree that this is a binary choice. I oppose contemporary cancel culture because it is far too stifling and a tax on being interesting as you say. But does this mean, to invoke Godwin’s Law, that I must be opposed to the firing of literal Nazis? No, I simply think that a lot more opinions should be tolerated and accepted than they are today, including many I disagree with and am vehemently opposed to.
I don’t find the person who said they wished Trump died to be a hero. Yes, they are just giving voice to the dark part of many Democrats’ beliefs. But that’s not heroic.
You should be opposed to the firing of literal nazis. As long as convicted criminals are allowed to hold jobs it's retarded to fire people for having offensive views (unless by "literal nazi" you mean somebody who was forcing others into death camps).
Nah, if my coworker thinks I should be murdered for my race, I’m fine with them being fired for it.
Are you sure that wanting to protect democracy and wishing he was killed is consistent? Maybe you think that killing him would have led to worse results for democracy. It could have led to backlash, even violent backlash, that made democracy even more likely to be undermined.
I don't think it's only hypocrisy; it's also deontology. When Bill Maher condemned the sort of comments in question and said "liberals don't shoot people", he was articulating a deontic constraint on action. I doubt he'd see a moral incompatibility with wishing the guy would have a fatal heart attack.
I feel like your argument that types like LibsofTikTok are being hypocritical doesn’t work. There’s nothing hypocritical about her. She’s engaged in tribal politics, and there’s nothing hypocritical about advocating for canceling your political opponents and being against the canceling of your political allies. it’s the friend enemy distinction.
I guess than there's nothing hypocrite if a dissonant righotid got caught in a pedo case (hello Ali ALexander) while for years they blamed libs to own a giant pedo cabal.
Based
It wasn’t cancellable to wish death upon trump until after it almost happened.