Author Topic: So VP Mike Pence was using an AOL email for State business & was actually hacked  (Read 1777 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jpotter33

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19026
  • Tommy Points: 1207
Roy, have you ever thought about renaming the Celticsblog forum as Occupy Democrats/Daily KOS/The Huffington Post 2.0?  ;)

I mean, seriously, the amount of partisan hypocrisy that has been displayed on this blog in the last year or so is just disgusting, and it goes both ways, too. The amount of discussion on here about the scandals and corruption surrounding Trump and his team vastly overshadows the very minimal discussion about the scandals and corruption surrounding Obama, Hillary, or anything on the left side of the political spectrum, and even when these things do get brought up, it's usually from Conservative or Libertarian-types with most of the discussion being rationalizations and equivocations trying to justify or downplay the issue.

Where was all the outrage on here over some of the leftist scandals and corruption the last few years, such as the Fast and Furious scandal, the DNC corruption, VA Health Administration Scandal, IRS Scandal, the Iranian Hostage Ransom Scandal, GSA Scandal, Holder/New Black Panther Party Scandal, Obama's executive overreach, etc.? Funny that on a leftist blog for a New England sports team that these issues are much less discussed in favor of Republican scandals, and, like I said, it works the other way, too. Way too many people in middle America rationalize Trump's issues while focusing on the failures or issues of Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc.

Don't try to act like you care about corruption now when you were reticent the last 8 years with Democratic/leftist corruption. Don't try to act like you care about executive overreach now when you were reticent the last 8 years about Obama's executive overreach. Don't try to act like you care about honesty and integrity now when you were reticent the last 8 years with Democratic/leftist lack of honesty and integrity.

And I know most of you do care about these things personally and aren't the blind partisans that many Americans are. But the fact of the matter is that on here you're much more vocal and passionate about these issues now than you were the last 8 years when it came from a leftist administration, which is completely unjust, illogical, and hypocritical. It is this type of attitude that has caused such major political divides in America.

This blog (at least the current events section) would be so much better with much more political parity instead of the dominance of liberal posters that has largely made this place a Trump-hating echo chamber in recent months. There'd be a lot more useful, interesting political dialogue than the constant snarky back-patting and group-affirmation that characterizes much of the dialogue recently. It's becoming more and more apparent to me why people voluntarily ban themselves from the current event sections here.

And I know there's going to be rationalizing posts in response to this suggesting a false equivalency, that Trump is much worse than Obama, and/or arguing that the scandals/issues are different or not really scandals/issues at all, because of course there will be. But that just further proves the central thesis that I'm arguing here.

So if someone wasn't calling out Obama for every failure for 8 years that invalidates people's legitimate concerns about Trump?  Sorry, no it doesn't.



Hi, my name is strawman, have we met?  ;)

That's not my argument in any way, shape, or form. There are legitimate concerns with Trump, and people are right to call him out on it.

But that fact doesn't make one any less of a hypocrite or a biased partisan if one also wasn't doing the same with Obama and the left, and with the same amount of passion and outrage, too.
Quote from:  Friedrich Nietzsche
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Offline mmmmm

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2592
  • Tommy Points: 400
Trump won. Get over it.  Trump has done more to benefit the American people in 1 month than Obama did in 8 years. What you lefties have to stop doing is trying to delegitimize the election. You cry babies are not looking good and not helping your cause. You are only making Trump stronger which is good for Lower taxes, better healthcare, stronger military and economic prosperity.



[dang] did we delegitimize the original birther who lost the popular vote by 3 million.  When your taxes are lower, your healthcare is better, we have a stronger military, and economic prosperity you can make your claim --so far we just have a month of stupidly mismanaged disorganization and a lot of foolish tweets.

Oooh! Ooh! Don't forget crumbling faith from international communities in our ability to keep our word as a country and eroding relationships worldwide with longtime allies!

Like when Obama screwed Israel at the UN Security Council?

Hey Roy,

I'm gonna leave this right here for you:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

If you don't like counterexamples exposing hypocrisy, I'm not sure what to say.  If stabbing Israel in its back isn't an example of "eroding relationships worldwide with longtime allies", then you're wearing hyper-partisan blinders. If Schumer and Blumenthal call the administration out, then you know it's a significant breach.

If one has got no problem with Obama screwing allies, but takes offense to Trump objecting to taking refugees that Australia doesn't want or asking for NATO members to carry their weight, s/he's probably living in a state of cognitive dissonance.

The topic of this thread is a counterexample exposing hypocrisy, but you are pretty vociferously arguing a non-congruence.

What I'm saying to you really is that the habit of arguing "yeah, but...Obama" or "yeah, but...Hillary" is deflective propaganda (Soviet-rooted propaganda at that!).  And it's extremely lazy.

It can be both true that Trump has weakened our position in the world by offending allies and that Obama's Israel vote abstention hurt U.S.-Israeli relations, but invoking the latter to dispel the former is not a valid argument.  It's like when a child breaks a lamp and defends himself by saying his brother drew on the wall.  The kid still broke the dang lamp.
m

Sure, except none of that applies here. I'm not defending Trump. I'm not invoking Obama's failures to defend Trump's. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of being upset for doing similar things to what Obama did.

I don't like Trump, but I find the blatant hypocrisy toward his actions to be a mix between amusing and nauseating.

So ... when a CelticsBlog member posts a comment critical of the Trump administration, you aren't engaging in 'whataboutism' with these little red-herrings ...

... instead you are attacking the poster for their 'hypocrisy'?  ...  based on your presumption that they were not critical also of Obama (for what you consider equivalent offenses)?

Is that the logic?
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

Offline mmmmm

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2592
  • Tommy Points: 400
Roy, have you ever thought about renaming the Celticsblog forum as Occupy Democrats/Daily KOS/The Huffington Post 2.0?  ;)

I mean, seriously, the amount of partisan hypocrisy that has been displayed on this blog in the last year or so is just disgusting, and it goes both ways, too. The amount of discussion on here about the scandals and corruption surrounding Trump and his team vastly overshadows the very minimal discussion about the scandals and corruption surrounding Obama, Hillary, or anything on the left side of the political spectrum, and even when these things do get brought up, it's usually from Conservative or Libertarian-types with most of the discussion being rationalizations and equivocations trying to justify or downplay the issue.

Where was all the outrage on here over some of the leftist scandals and corruption the last few years, such as the Fast and Furious scandal, the DNC corruption, VA Health Administration Scandal, IRS Scandal, the Iranian Hostage Ransom Scandal, GSA Scandal, Holder/New Black Panther Party Scandal, Obama's executive overreach, etc.? Funny that on a leftist blog for a New England sports team that these issues are much less discussed in favor of Republican scandals, and, like I said, it works the other way, too. Way too many people in middle America rationalize Trump's issues while focusing on the failures or issues of Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc.

Don't try to act like you care about corruption now when you were reticent the last 8 years with Democratic/leftist corruption. Don't try to act like you care about executive overreach now when you were reticent the last 8 years about Obama's executive overreach. Don't try to act like you care about honesty and integrity now when you were reticent the last 8 years with Democratic/leftist lack of honesty and integrity.

And I know most of you do care about these things personally and aren't the blind partisans that many Americans are. But the fact of the matter is that on here you're much more vocal and passionate about these issues now than you were the last 8 years when it came from a leftist administration, which is completely unjust, illogical, and hypocritical. It is this type of attitude that has caused such major political divides in America.

This blog (at least the current events section) would be so much better with much more political parity instead of the dominance of liberal posters that has largely made this place a Trump-hating echo chamber in recent months. There'd be a lot more useful, interesting political dialogue than the constant snarky back-patting and group-affirmation that characterizes much of the dialogue recently. It's becoming more and more apparent to me why people voluntarily ban themselves from the current event sections here.

And I know there's going to be rationalizing posts in response to this suggesting a false equivalency, that Trump is much worse than Obama, and/or arguing that the scandals/issues are different or not really scandals/issues at all, because of course there will be. But that just further proves the central thesis that I'm arguing here.

So if someone wasn't calling out Obama for every failure for 8 years that invalidates people's legitimate concerns about Trump?  Sorry, no it doesn't.



Hi, my name is strawman, have we met?  ;)

That's not my argument in any way, shape, or form. There are legitimate concerns with Trump, and people are right to call him out on it.

But that fact doesn't make one any less of a hypocrite or a biased partisan if one also wasn't doing the same with Obama and the left, and with the same amount of passion and outrage, too.

Okay.  So you aren't at all trying to invalidate or rebut in any way, the issues people have raised with the Trump administration.

The above was just a long, verbose way of calling people hypocrites.  Got it.  Okay.  Moving on.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

Offline fairweatherfan

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16908
  • Tommy Points: 2162
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
The most annoying thing about the constant whataboutism, and why I've mostly stopped responding to or even acknowledging it, is that in many cases I've had conversations with those exact posters on the exact topics they're trying to deflect to, often very recently. Like, we repeatedly discussed things like the DNC leaks and Clinton's email server in the election thread, then a month later the same people I talked to are saying, "Where was the outrage when blahblahblah". Well, we talked about that, back when it was, y'know, relevant.

Or when it refers to something decades ago, like I can't criticize something Trump did today unless I produce an impassioned Usenet post from 10th grade where I say the same things about Bill Clinton, and I'm somehow morally diminished by not being able to do so.

And, of course, the logic quickly disappears up its own backside if applied consistently, like how the whatabouters are calling out some opinions, but what about those other opinions they aren't calling out, where was their outrage then, hmmm? It's nonsense.

Ultimately, there's some value in providing context to events that are rarely noted or poorly understood - for example it's reasonable to note that gov't officials meet with the Russian ambassador all the time, or that use of private servers for gov't email is unfortunately very common. That can be informative, you can build from that and have a productive discussion about specific circumstances that make this instance worse or better.  But the reflexive, constant drumbeat of "you're a hypocrite because" blather just seems like a lazy attempt to change the subject to an attack on the messenger while implying moral superiority over them. It's so shallow, hackish and petty that it kills the quality of discussion when it takes over a thread, and even worse I think that's largely the point.

Online jpotter33

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19026
  • Tommy Points: 1207
And I know there's going to be rationalizing posts in response to this suggesting a false equivalency, that Trump is much worse than Obama, and/or arguing that the scandals/issues are different or not really scandals/issues at all, because of course there will be. But that just further proves the central thesis that I'm arguing here.
That was a huge wall of text. However, after reading it I am still not sure what your central thesis is.

I can tell you what my central thesis is, though: how objectively awful the first month of the Trump presidency have been is not (nor should it it be) a partisan issue.

The problem of most conservatives (on the blog and in general) is that they're willing to double down on this Presidency, evidence be danged. It's an odd "it's my turn to play with the toys so shush" syndrom, but I guess that's the hill on which the Republican Party chose to die on.

My central thesis is don't be a hypocritical, inconsistent ass. Don't be "outraged" over scandals, corruption, and executive overreach with the Trump administration if you also weren't similarly "outraged" over the same types of issues with the Obama administration. There's been a lot of that type of behavior on here the last several months.

As for Trump's presidency so far, I can't really comment. After following the presidential race and aftermath pretty heavily, I had to have a break. Further, I've been pretty busy focusing on finishing my dissertation in time for my postdoc to follow things too closely. And that's been exacerbated by the fact that I can't find any real objective media source that presents an objective look at the issues without significant bias or ulterior motives, both for and against the current administration.
Quote from:  Friedrich Nietzsche
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30296
  • Tommy Points: -28272
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Trump won. Get over it.  Trump has done more to benefit the American people in 1 month than Obama did in 8 years. What you lefties have to stop doing is trying to delegitimize the election. You cry babies are not looking good and not helping your cause. You are only making Trump stronger which is good for Lower taxes, better healthcare, stronger military and economic prosperity.



[dang] did we delegitimize the original birther who lost the popular vote by 3 million.  When your taxes are lower, your healthcare is better, we have a stronger military, and economic prosperity you can make your claim --so far we just have a month of stupidly mismanaged disorganization and a lot of foolish tweets.

Oooh! Ooh! Don't forget crumbling faith from international communities in our ability to keep our word as a country and eroding relationships worldwide with longtime allies!

Like when Obama screwed Israel at the UN Security Council?

Hey Roy,

I'm gonna leave this right here for you:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

If you don't like counterexamples exposing hypocrisy, I'm not sure what to say.  If stabbing Israel in its back isn't an example of "eroding relationships worldwide with longtime allies", then you're wearing hyper-partisan blinders. If Schumer and Blumenthal call the administration out, then you know it's a significant breach.

If one has got no problem with Obama screwing allies, but takes offense to Trump objecting to taking refugees that Australia doesn't want or asking for NATO members to carry their weight, s/he's probably living in a state of cognitive dissonance.

The topic of this thread is a counterexample exposing hypocrisy, but you are pretty vociferously arguing a non-congruence.

What I'm saying to you really is that the habit of arguing "yeah, but...Obama" or "yeah, but...Hillary" is deflective propaganda (Soviet-rooted propaganda at that!).  And it's extremely lazy.

It can be both true that Trump has weakened our position in the world by offending allies and that Obama's Israel vote abstention hurt U.S.-Israeli relations, but invoking the latter to dispel the former is not a valid argument.  It's like when a child breaks a lamp and defends himself by saying his brother drew on the wall.  The kid still broke the dang lamp.
m

Sure, except none of that applies here. I'm not defending Trump. I'm not invoking Obama's failures to defend Trump's. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of being upset for doing similar things to what Obama did.

I don't like Trump, but I find the blatant hypocrisy toward his actions to be a mix between amusing and nauseating.

So ... when a CelticsBlog member posts a comment critical of the Trump administration, you aren't engaging in 'whataboutism' with these little red-herrings ...

... instead you are attacking the poster for their 'hypocrisy'?  ...  based on your presumption that they were not critical also of Obama (for what you consider equivalent offenses)?

Is that the logic?

I'm pointing out hypocrisy, yes. In this case, IndeedProceed's, but his views are indicative of a number of CelticsBlog political commenters. I've read thousands of IP's posts, and at least hundreds of his political comments, to the point where I can note that his outrage is partisan and selective. Again, though, the prevailing hypocrisy on this blog isn't an outlier; we see it from most of the national figures in both parties.

in an ideal world, people would be introspective when presented with their own hypocrisy, and would adopt a more consistent worldview. Of course, I'm not na´ve enough to think that that will happen with any regularity, but I am still going to point out hypocrisy when I see it.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline mmmmm

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2592
  • Tommy Points: 400
Trump won. Get over it.  Trump has done more to benefit the American people in 1 month than Obama did in 8 years. What you lefties have to stop doing is trying to delegitimize the election. You cry babies are not looking good and not helping your cause. You are only making Trump stronger which is good for Lower taxes, better healthcare, stronger military and economic prosperity.



[dang] did we delegitimize the original birther who lost the popular vote by 3 million.  When your taxes are lower, your healthcare is better, we have a stronger military, and economic prosperity you can make your claim --so far we just have a month of stupidly mismanaged disorganization and a lot of foolish tweets.

Oooh! Ooh! Don't forget crumbling faith from international communities in our ability to keep our word as a country and eroding relationships worldwide with longtime allies!

Like when Obama screwed Israel at the UN Security Council?

Hey Roy,

I'm gonna leave this right here for you:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

If you don't like counterexamples exposing hypocrisy, I'm not sure what to say.  If stabbing Israel in its back isn't an example of "eroding relationships worldwide with longtime allies", then you're wearing hyper-partisan blinders. If Schumer and Blumenthal call the administration out, then you know it's a significant breach.

If one has got no problem with Obama screwing allies, but takes offense to Trump objecting to taking refugees that Australia doesn't want or asking for NATO members to carry their weight, s/he's probably living in a state of cognitive dissonance.

The topic of this thread is a counterexample exposing hypocrisy, but you are pretty vociferously arguing a non-congruence.

What I'm saying to you really is that the habit of arguing "yeah, but...Obama" or "yeah, but...Hillary" is deflective propaganda (Soviet-rooted propaganda at that!).  And it's extremely lazy.

It can be both true that Trump has weakened our position in the world by offending allies and that Obama's Israel vote abstention hurt U.S.-Israeli relations, but invoking the latter to dispel the former is not a valid argument.  It's like when a child breaks a lamp and defends himself by saying his brother drew on the wall.  The kid still broke the dang lamp.
m

Sure, except none of that applies here. I'm not defending Trump. I'm not invoking Obama's failures to defend Trump's. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of being upset for doing similar things to what Obama did.

I don't like Trump, but I find the blatant hypocrisy toward his actions to be a mix between amusing and nauseating.

So ... when a CelticsBlog member posts a comment critical of the Trump administration, you aren't engaging in 'whataboutism' with these little red-herrings ...

... instead you are attacking the poster for their 'hypocrisy'?  ...  based on your presumption that they were not critical also of Obama (for what you consider equivalent offenses)?

Is that the logic?

I'm pointing out hypocrisy, yes. In this case, IndeedProceed's, but his views are indicative of a number of CelticsBlog political commenters. I've read thousands of IP's posts, and at least hundreds of his political comments, to the point where I can note that his outrage is partisan and selective. Again, though, the prevailing hypocrisy on this blog isn't an outlier; we see it from most of the national figures in both parties.

in an ideal world, people would be introspective when presented with their own hypocrisy, and would adopt a more consistent worldview. Of course, I'm not na´ve enough to think that that will happen with any regularity, but I am still going to point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Okay.  That's fine.  As long as we are clear that what you are doing is not actually debating the topic, but rather instead simply attacking the poster's character.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

Offline kozlodoev

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14561
  • Tommy Points: 996
As for Trump's presidency so far, I can't really comment. After following the presidential race and aftermath pretty heavily, I had to have a break. Further, I've been pretty busy focusing on finishing my dissertation in time for my postdoc to follow things too closely. And that's been exacerbated by the fact that I can't find any real objective media source that presents an objective look at the issues without significant bias or ulterior motives, both for and against the current administration.
The issue is that this President and a good deal of his Administration have been an unmitigated disaster so far. Of course, many conservatives take this conclusion as an indication of "liberal bias". I'm afraid there's little to be done about that -- unless of course you don't mind dealing in "alternative facts". With this in mind, I find BBC and PBS are pretty good.

I recommend not compromising with the dissertation. I took a full-time job after my prospectus was approved, and thus spent two years trying to complete what should have been a three months' worth of work.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Offline Big333223

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2164
  • Tommy Points: 176
But that fact doesn't make one any less of a hypocrite or a biased partisan if one also wasn't doing the same with Obama and the left, and with the same amount of passion and outrage, too.
That's not really true.

If a Democrat and a Republican do the same thing and I say the Democrat is good and the Republican is bad, then I'm a hypocrite. But if I say a Republican is bad without acknowledging the democrat at all, there's no hypocrisy there. I have simply given my opinion on a specific situation.

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30296
  • Tommy Points: -28272
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Trump won. Get over it.  Trump has done more to benefit the American people in 1 month than Obama did in 8 years. What you lefties have to stop doing is trying to delegitimize the election. You cry babies are not looking good and not helping your cause. You are only making Trump stronger which is good for Lower taxes, better healthcare, stronger military and economic prosperity.



[dang] did we delegitimize the original birther who lost the popular vote by 3 million.  When your taxes are lower, your healthcare is better, we have a stronger military, and economic prosperity you can make your claim --so far we just have a month of stupidly mismanaged disorganization and a lot of foolish tweets.

Oooh! Ooh! Don't forget crumbling faith from international communities in our ability to keep our word as a country and eroding relationships worldwide with longtime allies!

Like when Obama screwed Israel at the UN Security Council?

Hey Roy,

I'm gonna leave this right here for you:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

If you don't like counterexamples exposing hypocrisy, I'm not sure what to say.  If stabbing Israel in its back isn't an example of "eroding relationships worldwide with longtime allies", then you're wearing hyper-partisan blinders. If Schumer and Blumenthal call the administration out, then you know it's a significant breach.

If one has got no problem with Obama screwing allies, but takes offense to Trump objecting to taking refugees that Australia doesn't want or asking for NATO members to carry their weight, s/he's probably living in a state of cognitive dissonance.

The topic of this thread is a counterexample exposing hypocrisy, but you are pretty vociferously arguing a non-congruence.

What I'm saying to you really is that the habit of arguing "yeah, but...Obama" or "yeah, but...Hillary" is deflective propaganda (Soviet-rooted propaganda at that!).  And it's extremely lazy.

It can be both true that Trump has weakened our position in the world by offending allies and that Obama's Israel vote abstention hurt U.S.-Israeli relations, but invoking the latter to dispel the former is not a valid argument.  It's like when a child breaks a lamp and defends himself by saying his brother drew on the wall.  The kid still broke the dang lamp.
m

Sure, except none of that applies here. I'm not defending Trump. I'm not invoking Obama's failures to defend Trump's. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of being upset for doing similar things to what Obama did.

I don't like Trump, but I find the blatant hypocrisy toward his actions to be a mix between amusing and nauseating.

So ... when a CelticsBlog member posts a comment critical of the Trump administration, you aren't engaging in 'whataboutism' with these little red-herrings ...

... instead you are attacking the poster for their 'hypocrisy'?  ...  based on your presumption that they were not critical also of Obama (for what you consider equivalent offenses)?

Is that the logic?

I'm pointing out hypocrisy, yes. In this case, IndeedProceed's, but his views are indicative of a number of CelticsBlog political commenters. I've read thousands of IP's posts, and at least hundreds of his political comments, to the point where I can note that his outrage is partisan and selective. Again, though, the prevailing hypocrisy on this blog isn't an outlier; we see it from most of the national figures in both parties.

in an ideal world, people would be introspective when presented with their own hypocrisy, and would adopt a more consistent worldview. Of course, I'm not na´ve enough to think that that will happen with any regularity, but I am still going to point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Okay.  That's fine.  As long as we are clear that what you are doing is not actually debating the topic, but rather instead simply attacking the poster's character.

Nice try. I'm debating the logic of the outrage. Last I checked, we can still look at the logical underpinnings and consistency of one's argument. If the issue at hand, for instance, is whether America is honoring its alliances, it's completely fair to engage in a debate about whether the outrage is sincere, or whether it's blind partisanship. Examining similar examples seems to be the most effective way of doing that.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline kozlodoev

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14561
  • Tommy Points: 996
Nice try. I'm debating the logic of the outrage. Last I checked, we can still look at the logical underpinnings and consistency of one's argument. If the issue at hand, for instance, is whether America is honoring its alliances, it's completely fair to engage in a debate about whether the outrage is sincere, or whether it's blind partisanship. Examining similar examples seems to be the most effective way of doing that.
Strange, I don't remember you coming along with this argument when Clinton's email scandal first rolled around. Like, for example, pointing out Colin Powell's use of personal emails for State business and urging everyone to be "introspective". Oh well.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30296
  • Tommy Points: -28272
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
But that fact doesn't make one any less of a hypocrite or a biased partisan if one also wasn't doing the same with Obama and the left, and with the same amount of passion and outrage, too.
That's not really true.

If a Democrat and a Republican do the same thing and I say the Democrat is good and the Republican is bad, then I'm a hypocrite. But if I say a Republican is bad without acknowledging the democrat at all, there's no hypocrisy there. I have simply given my opinion on a specific situation.

True, for a one time thing. But if one continually criticizes Democrats, hundreds of times, while defending and/or turning a blind eye to similar issues with Republicans, it's probably fair to draw some inferences about their motivations.

That applies to the media and our elected officials as much as it does to any particular hypocrite on a basketball blog.  It's all part of the same problem, though. Political partisans may as well be WWE fans. They hate Steve Austin when he's a heel, and cheer him when he's a hero, just like partisans make their decisions based upon who is in power.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30296
  • Tommy Points: -28272
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Nice try. I'm debating the logic of the outrage. Last I checked, we can still look at the logical underpinnings and consistency of one's argument. If the issue at hand, for instance, is whether America is honoring its alliances, it's completely fair to engage in a debate about whether the outrage is sincere, or whether it's blind partisanship. Examining similar examples seems to be the most effective way of doing that.
Strange, I don't remember you coming along with this argument when Clinton's email scandal first rolled around. Like, for example, pointing out Colin Powell's use of personal emails for State business and urging everyone to be "introspective". Oh well.

According to Powell, he never used personal emails for classified information, he never set up his own server, he never deleted tens of thousands of emails, and his aides never took the Fifth to avoid incriminating themselves for potentially illegal activity.

And, in terms of partisan hypocrisy, Colin Powell is about the last person most conservatives would defend. His worldview seems similar to Clinton's, without the blatant corruption.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Online jpotter33

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19026
  • Tommy Points: 1207
The most annoying thing about the constant whataboutism, and why I've mostly stopped responding to or even acknowledging it, is that in many cases I've had conversations with those exact posters on the exact topics they're trying to deflect to, often very recently. Like, we repeatedly discussed things like the DNC leaks and Clinton's email server in the election thread, then a month later the same people I talked to are saying, "Where was the outrage when blahblahblah". Well, we talked about that, back when it was, y'know, relevant.

Or when it refers to something decades ago, like I can't criticize something Trump did today unless I produce an impassioned Usenet post from 10th grade where I say the same things about Bill Clinton, and I'm somehow morally diminished by not being able to do so.

And, of course, the logic quickly disappears up its own backside if applied consistently, like how the whatabouters are calling out some opinions, but what about those other opinions they aren't calling out, where was their outrage then, hmmm? It's nonsense.

Ultimately, there's some value in providing context to events that are rarely noted or poorly understood - for example it's reasonable to note that gov't officials meet with the Russian ambassador all the time, or that use of private servers for gov't email is unfortunately very common. That can be informative, you can build from that and have a productive discussion about specific circumstances that make this instance worse or better.  But the reflexive, constant drumbeat of "you're a hypocrite because X" blather just seems like a lazy attempt to change the subject to an attack on the messenger while implying moral superiority over them. It's so shallow, hackish and petty that it kills the quality of discussion when it takes over a thread, and even worse I think that's largely the point.

FWF, I genuinely appreciate your basketball insights and posts. But I find it not surprising in the least that you're objecting to this post, because I think that you're ultimately one of the main perpetrators of this inconsistent logic.

Yes, we had numerous conversations about some of these issues several months back, and just as I said in the post above, the vast majority of your dialogue on the matter was a bunch rationalizations, equivocations, and downplaying the issues as "false equivalencies" and defending the perpetrators. You can't act like you were over there "outraged" at these issues. You were simply defending them in your dialogue. That doesn't mean you "talked about it"  and were significantly concerned about the actions. That's revisionist history that proves nothing.

And you can't imply that I'm some partisan hack perpetrating this same logic either. I was one of the more vocal opponents of Trump during both the primaries and the election. I routinely criticized issues and people on both the left and right. However, this blog has become such a leftist echo chamber that even the simplest and smallest of criticisms of the left are outliers, which paints the poster as a conservative or Republican, even though I've been very vocal in my support of classical liberalism that is opposed to numerous basic conservative principles.

Finally, the fact that you're talking about my post "implying moral superiority" while this very same post absolutely reeks of this very implication, along with the typical snarky, elitist leftist arrogance, just absolutely puts the cherry on top of this lack of self-awareness pie. No wonder the far right has won so much in the last decade; this is the typical inconsistent logic and attitude that most leftists reason with anymore. And this is exactly why much more political parity is needed on these blogs, because inconsistent posts like these go unchallenged way too often on here. Roy can't do it all himself, but most of the others have just said "screw it" (or been banned) because it's not worth dealing with the repercussions of the leftist tidal wave that you have to fight against.

At least I'm explicit and direct in my posts. Yes, I am absolutely making a moral judgment about the whole hypocrisy claim. Consistency is the fundamental basis of morality, and inconsistent, biased logic is an immoral use of reason that should not be tolerated.

Many of you are missing the entire point. The very fact that you are much more inclined to make a critical post about Trump's corruption, dishonesty, and executive overreach rather than corruption, dishonesty, and executive overreach from a leftist perspective implies bias and hypocrisy.

It's hard for people to take these major criticisms of Trump on here (or in the media) seriously, because the same "outrage" wasn't apparent with the Obama administration's corruption, dishonesty, and executive overreach. If you can't see the problem there, then you're just being willfully ignorant, because I think it's clear that you're intelligent enough to see the problem there. The fact that you're once again trying to rationalize and justify these differing treatments and focuses is just further proof of bias and hypocrisy, and you're better than that.
Quote from:  Friedrich Nietzsche
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Offline blink

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3216
  • Tommy Points: 209
this thread is quickly devolving into personal potshots...