Using words like hypocrisy is a reflection of your values, not theirs.
They don’t believe your opinion matters. Therefore hypocrisy is an empty moral value.
Why people continue to use is frustrating.
To respond to the slight of being called a hypocrite, you first must possess some level of a sense of social cohesion and egalitarianism. A belief that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” mentality.
UCP members don’t have that characteristic.
They believe in the natural order where the top of the hierarchy has no limits on their behaviour.
Wealthy people paying for their kids college acceptance, banks giving wealthy people lower interest rates on loans, VIP entrance to jump the queue.
These are all examples of the status those at the top of the hierarchy believe they deserve.
Egalitarian values and beliefs respond to accusations of hypocrisy. Usually when someone steps out of normal expected behaviour.
Paleolibertarians don’t have that dilemma. They believe as god fearing Christians that this permits them to do whatever they want as long as it’s in the pursuit of furthering god’s agenda.
Rules are for people lower in social status. Not the elites.
So hypocrisy isn’t the correct term.
Hubristic arrogance. Classist entitlement. The people who think their 💩 doesn’t stink. Uppity ups.
Those are terms that suit the situation.
Because when the elites create rules and laws to control the behaviour of the public, they are automatically excluded due to their social & political status.
They retain control of the definition of “us” in “us vs them”
Watch this video. Yes it’s long (22 minutes), but it describes why they feel entitled and accusations of hypocrisy go unheard and unaddressed. And it’s entertaining.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Mr. Singh’s intentional attempt to divide progressives into two factions: those who demand immediate action, and those who understand centuries of persecution will take time and mutual cooperation between governments and communities to address is reprehensible.
I’m not a lawyer. But I know enough of them and have independently studied legal issues to know what Mr. Singh is requesting of the federal government, by withdrawing court cases related to child welfare and residential school compensation is anti-democratic and dangerous.
Perhaps some lawyers could opine to confirm these assertions I’m making. Instead of permitting this charlatan from ripping apart Canadian democratic norms and conventions.
How many more times do I need to be subjected to asinine stupid comments about indigenous issues from people who think they mean well, but they’re actually as clueless as a door knob!
JFC this is pissing me off more than I thought it would!
Not that I expect everyone to read my threads, but I did write a very important one a couple days ago.
In it I said people would immediately move to solutions to avoid feeling difficult emotions about the discovery of a mass grave of indigenous children.
How characteristic of complicit humans to avoid feeling responsible for any part of this genocide. How ‘Good German’ of you!
I hoped for better self awareness. But nope. Same ole same old.
How many people are familiar with the following truth?
“Those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it.” ~ Edmund Burke
Most people assume Burke was referencing maintaining awareness of history to avoid sliding into autocracy.
He wasn’t. He was referencing the French Revolution. Where the common folk deposed the monarchy & noble classes. And redistributed wealth and resources more equitably.
In theory anyway (check out Robespierre).
Burke was a wealthy aristocrat. Afraid of losing his status, property and comfortable lifestyle.
And he was correct. When you don’t pay attention to current events & seek to understand them in contexts with past events, you’re doomed.
A request to fund a comprehensive search for buried children on and around indigenous residential schools was made by the TRC and denied by Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl in 2009.