Hacker News Reader

Comment by mobilefriendly | Hacker News Reader

This is hilarious because Delaney was first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him, the state legislature literally looped in his house by two blocks.

http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/cct-arc-acca0c6c-9aa4-5159...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politic...

View on HN

Tu quoque. [0] One of the most powerful fallacies in politics. Shuts down countless reform attempts. Loved by the corrupt.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Shouldn't discredit him, but doesn't make it not funny.

I would say it wasn't funny regardless, but I suppose that's a different matter.

I'm not sure it's that effective these days. The American electorate just seems to expect that its leaders will be hypocrites and rewards them for it.

The world wouldn't run without at least a little hypocrisy. I don't think hypocrisy is inherently immoral. Some immoral actions are hypocritical, but some hypocritical actions are the right thing to do.

Can you give a concrete example where being an hypocrite would be the right thing to do?

Well, let's say I'm a doctor, I'm well convinced that smoking is quite harmful, but I find myself too addicted to manage to quit. Certainly, my nonetheless quitting is the best outcome. But telling people to quit despite not doing so myself is preferable to telling people not to quit, isn't it?

That is not a case of hypocrisy being the right thing, but rather the doctor doing the right thing in spite of the hypocrisy, not due to it.

Sure, I don't think you can find a case where hypocrisy is the right thing to do for the sake of hypocrisy. That's not really an interesting observation when clearly no one places a positive first-order moral value on hypocrisy.

The US is quite hypocritical about interfering with the political process of other countries and now that it's happened to us, we're going nuts.

It's a good thing because if some countries went down a political path, it would be very adverse to our self interests and the interests of the world at large (Iran 1979, Cuba 1959, Germany 1939, etc).

Also, "the right thing to do," is a very relative term.

Suppose I want to fight climate change, and I decide to make a documentary to raise awareness. The logistics of making a documentary is certainly going to result in some amount of additional carbon emissions being produced. I might be called a hypocrite for creating all these CO2 emissions to make a movie that tells people to emit less CO2.

But does that mean it was wrong of me to create this documentary? Not necessarily. If people watch my film and take action to reduce worldwide emissions, it's likely to cancel out the carbon cost of making the film in the first place.

I think that there has been a rise in America lately (and possibly the West in general) in the notion that in order to not be a hypocrite—in order to be taken seriously in any position—you must be ideologically pure. You can't, for instance, advocate for environmentalism if you have a nonzero carbon footprint, or advocate for the poor if you don't live a life of simple humility.

This is absurd in any practical sense, but it's being used to dismiss all kinds of people's arguments simply because they have to actually live in the real world, rather than some ideological fantasy land.

It absolutely is. One of the biggest arguments today about global warming is that since Al Gore lives in a mansion and rides in a personal jet, it's not real, because he personally isn't doing anything about it by moving(?) or flying commercial.

You should read some right winger stuff now and again. It's another world.

The right also believes that Donald Trump is going to sock it to the wealthy coastal elites, despite being a billionaire real-estate developer from Manhattan, and espouses family values while electing a man who bragged about the size of his penis in a presidential debate.

(I could give plenty of instances of liberal hypocrisy too, but that isn't the subject at hand.)

I think a more accurate model is that people pick their tribe emotionally, and then "their guy" can do no wrong while "the other guy" is the devil incarnate. All manners of hypocrisy are forgiven in the process.

This is how I see it as well. People get so emotionally tied to a particular argument, whether that be gun control or abortion or whatever, and it becomes all consuming where all other discussion or ideas seem fall by the wayside as secondary.

I suspect for our only two viable political parties, that's a feature, not a bug.

I think a more accurate model is that people pick their tribe emotionally, and then "their guy" can do no wrong while "the other guy" is the devil incarnate.

Rhetoric such as the use of logical fallacies like tu quoque is most effective on people who haven't picked a tribe yet. Dyed-in-the-wool supporters have the job of repeating the fallacies aimed at the other guy. It doesn't matter if they believe them or not.

The US was promoting itself a paragon of freedom while using slave labor like never before, after a massive genocide of the native people of America. "follow the money..."

See Chester Arthur - a man who had benefited extensively from the spoils system, helped put it out of existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur#Civil_servic...

I'm not sure how that is hilarious, it shows a little character in being willing to reign in a system that even got you into power.

It's more likely the other way around, showing very little character by using the rules of the game to his advantage to get into office and changing the rules of the game to stay in office.

But surely if he's in a gerrymandered district, passing these rules would make it harder for him to be re-elected? He's shooting himself in the foot to do the right thing.

I can respect that.

We need more of this kind of thinking. For example Trump should want a Russia prob instead of watering down sanctions as he is quietly doing. This is how governing is suppose to work, instead of what ever the hell you call the current state of affairs.

This bill, if it becomes law, moves the gerrymandering from one commission to another. It doesn't stop gerrymandering. How does the new commission get formed? How long do people serve on it? Who appoints them? Do they get elected?

I'm not saying the system doesn't need to be reformed. It does. However, trusting people who say things that sound good, without evidence, is just following more politicians.

No the top-two open primary system would protect him, he's a wealthy white male Democrat in a formerly Republican district, his biggest threat is from the left in a closed primary.

Whichever party is in charge of "reforming" or "eliminating" gerrymandering is simply looking to redraw districts in a "fairer" manner which oh by the way happens to benefit the party in question. This is how it always goes.

Eh. I'm against state-sponsored gambling.

That didn't stop me from using tens of thousands from a lottery-funded state scholarship.

I favor sales tax over income tax, but I still pay income tax. That's just the way the world works. I play by the laws but endevour to improve them.

He had to play by the current rules of the game to get in. That doesn't mean he agreed with the rules.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com