Does conservative hypocrisy infuriate anybody else?

Post Reply New Topic

Lately, it appears that conservative politicians and even ordinary members of the party can't stop ranting about how overly-sensitive members of the left are and how they need to stop controlling what other people can say. While this notion is not bad on its own, that people should not be censored, I cannot take it seriously coming from these conservatives because they're completely guilty of the same crime they charge liberals for. If they see ANYTHING they find "immoral" or "violating tradition", they try to censor it all because of their biased Christian values This is why I'm a libertarian, because we truly want freedom for both sides. You should be able to say anything that's politically incorrect or anything that doesn't agree with someone else's subjective value system. But for real, any thoughts on this hypocrisy?

http://www.quickmeme.com/Old-Economy-Steven/
http://www.quickmeme.com/Scumbag-Baby-Boomers/

When you do the math, they are neither fiscally nor culturally conservative.

Neither are the alt-right.

Conservatism is mainly a smarmy, nostalgic virtue-signal.

Could you cite some actual examples of these things you find that conservatives want to censor?

Conservatives would stereotypically want to censor sex, drugs, rock n' roll, impose sumptuary laws, ie. Puritanical austerity.

But, the state has already fallen to moral decadence, to the point at which it arguably fulfills the Biblical role of Mystery Babylon.

"Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad. Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed: howl for her; take balm for her pain, if so be she may be healed. We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth unto heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies."
-- from Jer 51:7-9

The migrants have been there, done that, and bought the shirt. They came, they saw, they conquered. They want to go home, now. And, we're still promoting the narrative, they are still being oppressed, by white power.

Yes, thankyou!! We've had another person, recently, who did, seemingly, the exact same thing... Rant, and gave us no context----so, what are we suppose to do with that!

Also, in regard to the OP: It is against PPR rules to call Conservatives (which are usually aka Republicans), or any other people, idiots (copied and pasted):

Emphasis, mine.

Secondly, you seem to be comparing people who are against what someone SAYS, to people who are against what someone DOES (ie, "left... they need to stop controlling what other people can say" and "conservatives... If they see ANYTHING they find 'immoral' or 'violating tradition'...")----THEN, you top-it-all-off, by saying you're a Libertarian and that you want freedom for BOTH sides, and that "You should be able to say anything that's politically incorrect or anything that doesn't agree with someone else's subjective value system."; but, apparently, that's only the allowance for someone who is NOT a Conservative, or for someone who DOESN'T disagree with you (because you are doing the exact same thing, IMO, for which you're condemning THEM).

Color me, confused.....

Last edited by Campin_Cat on 01 May 2017, 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Surely:

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 5f3934346e: This article explains several forms of media that conservatives want censored, emphasizing that not only do liberals want certain things censored, but so do conservatives as well.
2. https://www.lehigh.edu/~infirst/musiccensorship.html: This article covers the 1950s moreso, but you still get the point. Conservatives didn't want anything that strayed from their view allowed.
3.http://www.salon.com/2015/08/31/america ... _warriors/: Read through this one.

Why don't you start, with the first, problematic phrase.

Ask the person, directly, what he meant.

You can eventually learn an entire language, or field of science, that way, if you just want to try.

I don't know to which thread you're referring----this one, or the other one I was talking-about in this quote----but, if you were talking about the other one, at least three of us said, in similar words, that we needed context (and, last I knew, the person never returned to the thread). If you're talking-about THIS thread, I already gave two reasons why, what was said in the OP, was problematic, for me.

@CuriousButDepressed.....

"This article explains several forms of media that conservatives want censored..."

No, it doesn't----it is someone's OPINION of what they want censored; and, they use the word "Republicans", and they're not necessarily the same (ie, some Democrats are conservative, and some Republicans are moderate); so, you gotta pick ONE (Conservatives or Republicans) that you wanna talk about.

"...emphasizing that not only do liberals want certain things censored, but so do conservatives as well."

Well, then, if Liberals ALSO want things censored, doesn't that shoot your own post in the foot?

This article covers the 1950s moreso, but you still get the point. Conservatives didn't want anything that strayed from their view allowed.

Actually, it covers MOST decades----from the flappers of the 20s to rap music of today----regardless, it's STILL someONE's OPINION.

Third article: Again, someone's OPINION.

Welp, good thing the sky still isn't falling..... Phew!!

IMO, even if you would've included a poll, for USers (can't say "Americans" anymore, cuz somebody'll be cryin' a river), that said: "Does conservative hypocrisy infuriate anybody else? Please check 'yes' or 'no'", it wouldn't've been good evidence for your claim, because the amount of USers that frequent PPR, isn't even CLOSE to a FRACTION of the population of the U.S.

I don't think it's so much genuine censorship the right wants, but more of a lament on societal decay. And conservatives, even the most strong conservatives (at least in America) don't want to hate anyone. I once seen a member on here say that he was in a conservative area of the US where he believes most people say Adam Lanza shot up a school because of him being an aspie. It's ludicrous. Never have I heard anyone in my circles say "I hate aspies/gays/whatever!" I never actually heard it implied either. The left is hurting more today than the right is. You'd never hear about it, though.

I would not say it infuriates me. The republican party and those who associate with it have undergone a number of paradigm shifts over the years and what was republican or conservative in one time period, is not in another time period.

However if one claims to prescribe to some moral or political ideology, I'm going to hold them to it, and I do come across a lot of hypocrites who claim to be conservatives (by my understanding of the word) and christians. Some of them are christian but just have a lot of cognitive dissonance, which is forgivable, while others are generally horrible people who need some type of disguise in society so they can operate with some level of impunity. I think identifying as conservative or christian is more favorable to the latter group for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider them actual conservatives or christians.

If they were simply lamenting how they felt society has fallen in their eyes, I wouldn't care. But when they try to dictate what they feel should be allowed in society because of their subjective values, I find that revolting. Don't they realize not everyone shares their subjective values and that it's wrong to force others to believe in what you want? Liberals are guilty of this too and the fact that so many conservatives are trying to do the same thing makes me so mad. Like I said, they can lament all I want, I don't care about that. I care about them trying to make their beliefs law. Conservatives can't do it and neither can liberals.

What about results though? Someone earlier mentioned the conservative view on drugs is hypocritical. Drug use, overall, has a negative effect on society. The more drugs are legalized, the more people will use them. That means that more people will get addicted and need help. Who pays for that help? Taxpayers. If it impacts others negatively, how is it hypocritical to oppose it?

I'd say it's hypocritical because conservatives are not opposed to alcohol being legal, yet it causes quite a few economic problems that one could argue would not exist if alcohol was illegal. If they're going to be opposed to drugs such as cocaine, marijuana and heroin, you'd think they'd also be opposed to alcohol on the grounds that it's dangerous to society. This article sheds some light on the costs alcohol has on society:

https://www.cdc.gov/features/alcoholconsumption/

Though regarding their view on other drugs being illegal, I'd say hypocritical is the wrong word. I think their approach has proven to be ineffective to actually decreasing drug use, as it has been shown time and time again that incarceration does NOT work.

https://www.drugtreatmentcenterfinder.c ... addiction/

Assuming the problem can even cured, why not use a more effective method? The facts seem to support rehab as being more effective:

http://rehab-international.org/blog/dru ... ons-study/

However, perhaps conservatives are wrong to be ranting about making drugs illegal because it's not possible to completely eradicate drug use?

http://theweek.com/articles/445005/why- ... ven-heroin

Oh, and do not forget Prohibition in the 1920s:
http://werehistory.org/why-prohibition-failed/

We should legalize them because clearly, the conservative approach does not work. Why can't they admit this and do what's best for society, as proven by statistics?

I understand that you might not like everything conservatives have to say, and even I don't like everything they say either. But, here's what I like:
1. Controlled immigration, let's make sure that everyone is obeying the law
2. Lower taxes-I know the left will argue that "trickle-down economics" doesn't work, but what's the alternative? You want to raise the taxes even more? Look, I understand the US is the lowest overall tax burden in the world, but some taxes do more harm than others I guess.
3. Education-Education is probably one of those very major domestic issues that are better left to local school districts and parents.
4. Healthcare-See above, better left to local governments or individual patients.

I mean, the immigration stance I take is that anyone should be allowed in, provided they have been properly checked to make sure they harbor no terroristic connections or any other dangerous ones. They also should be vaccinated against disease to prevent the spread of it to the local populous. I suppose my view on immigration is a variation of theirs?