Log In | Register
DENNIS M WRIGHT
Incertum ex Certis
Articles Posted: 131; Links Seeded: 558
Member Since: 1/2006Last Seen: 11/06/2009
Member Since: 1/2006Last Seen: 11/06/2009
27 Comments
PrintOK, so I'm a hypocrite - does that make my message bad?
News Type: Opinion — Fri Mar 2, 2007 8:06 AM EST
advertisement
Anyone who speaks out about something can expect to have their own record scrutinised for the merest hint of hypocrisy.
Why? Do I have to be squeaky clean before I can open my mouth about anything? Do I have to be a shining example of virtue before I have the right to criticise anything?
An example just today:
F1 cars are not allowed to send out positive environmental messages because racing cars are inevitably going to give off a lot more CO2 than regular road-going cars. What are they supposed to do? Cut their emissions and finish the race in last place? Abandon the environmental message and carry ads for tobacco companies?
And of course this is very topical. Al Gore expected to give away his wealth and live like a monk because a well-to-do person's lifestyle implies a bigger carbon footprint than most people's. Why should his wealth debar him from saying the right things about climate change?
There are countless more examples.
We know about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" but this is going too far. I'm not even a Christian, never mind an expert on Christian theology, but it is clear enough that this is a tenet about compassion and mercy to fellow human beings.
It's not an excuse to attack people on grounds of hypocrisy when the message doesn't suit you and you can't attack the message itself because it happens to be valid.
24 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Dennis M Wright's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (27)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
13
4.4
{"commentId":562116,"authorDomain":"denniswright"}
Alternatively you might agree with the message, but unearthing hypocrisy sells newspapers. This extends to citizen journalists as we've seen on here already.
This works because people are not tolerant of anything that even approaches hypocrisy. But is the press, in all its forms, deliberately promoting an atmosphere of zero-tolerance because they can make money out of outing some hapless individual who is merely human and has the temerity to say his piece on some subject or other? Isn't that itself a form of hypocrisy?
{"commentId":562116,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"denniswright"}
- 5 votes
#1 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 8:21 AM EST{"commentId":563118,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
but unearthing hypocrisy sells newspapers.
Are there scores of newspapers calling Al a hypocrite?
There is nothing being "unearthed". If you are going to go around making award-winning films and running envionmental organizations and lecturing people, with the intent of creating mass, global evironmental hysteria, promoting drastic changes to politics, lifestyles, standards and the economy - then we don't have to dig very hard to point out that the leader of this cause isn't willing to start with himself. If Americans are expected to lower thier standards of living and do more costly things to be good eco-citizens, then why can't the people with the highest standards of living set an example? If they're not hypocrites, then it must be because this entire campaign of fear and profit and legacy is a hoax and they are instead criminals.
{"commentId":563118,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":563962,"authorDomain":"blog4brains"}
I would like to say one thing here. Is it our own fears and insecurities that creates the perception of hypocrisy? One does not have to live the perfect life to state a perfect message; the person may just be trying to get people to think twice about certain issues as well as work on their own, not strip your life of everything that is cherished. I would say if he does not portray the message in which he is stating to the highest degree, then it is his leadership that should be judged, not his message.
Referring to Al Gore, I don't remember him saying walk to work and never use your A/C. I just remember him saying be more mindful of what you can do to help the environment. So, could it be the fact that no one wants to accept accountability, so we look for reasons to project this hypocrisy on to the messenger to debunk the message? Could this be the reason that only the contrarian is the one to point out the flaws and hypocrisy of the messenger? I say let's judge the message and leave the messenger to judge himself.
One last thing, is the truth less true when spoken from a lesser person? I would say the truth will always be the truth, no matter who the messenger is, and if he or she is not perfect and needs to change as well, then that is his or her own demons to battle.
Great article and a great discussion to follow.
{"commentId":563962,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"blog4brains"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":564525,"authorDomain":"ghes0272"}
From article: "Do I have to be squeaky clean before I can open my mouth about anything? Do I have to be a shining example of virtue before I have the right to criticise anything?"
Follow the money. Gore has a right to speak his opinion, but he is becoming very wealthy by promoting the fears of the populace. He criticizes my lifestyle, since I am a typical American consumer. He wants people like you and me to show up at his $175,000.00 speaking appearances so he can support his lavish Bell Meade lifestyle. You have the American right to fall for his scam if you want, but I also have the right to analyze it critically and reject it for what it is.
As for me, I will follow Al's example and use all the fuel I want for my lifestyle. Al's spokesperson said the Gores used the Nashville Electric Service "Green Switch" to pay extra money for renewable energy sources. Less than 1% of TVA's energy production qualifies as renewable, so what are the other 99% of us TVA consumers to do? I know, I will contact my local electric service and make sure they only send me electrons from their nuclear plants. I also get electricity from TVA and about 26% of the power is nuclear. No more carbon electricity for me. Carbon problem solved!
{"commentId":564525,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"ghes0272"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":565442,"authorDomain":"blog4brains"}
Shaanxi -- When I hear this, "I will follow Al's example and use all the fuel I want for my lifestyle." You are saying that you are willing to ruin the planet all for making a point about pointless semantics?
{"commentId":565442,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"blog4brains"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":585613,"authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
expected to lower thier standards of living
This isn't an expectation--it's an inevitability.
{"commentId":585613,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":586573,"authorDomain":"blog4brains"}
Stolte - I don't know who you are replying to, but lowering your standards is not necessarily the name of the game. It is about being more mindful of what your impact is. I am very eco-conscious, and I live a great life without lowering any standards. I have just never really understood the fight against the "lowering of the standards" thing. It is just about doing what you can, not living like a monk.
{"commentId":586573,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"blog4brains"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":586606,"authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
It was a quote from a previous comment in which someone claimed that emissions treaties demand lifestyle sacrifices from the average citizen. My point was that our lifestyles are inevitably going to change because the world is going to change--maybe not tomorrow, or next year, or a decade from now, but soon.
{"commentId":586606,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":586721,"authorDomain":"blog4brains"}
Got it, and yea, I would agree with you.
{"commentId":586721,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"blog4brains"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":562327,"authorDomain":"dotdot"}
It doesn't necessarily mean the message is bad, but it is bad for the message. People are less inclined to take advice from a hypocrite.
{"commentId":562327,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"dotdot"}
- 2 votes
#2 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 10:44 AM EST{"commentId":563146,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
How can the message be good? Or valid? The word 'sheep' is thrown around a lot to attack anyone with beliefs but I think there is nothing more sheepish than following someone who says 'do as I say, not as I do' or we're all going to die! We can criticize Christians who don't live their lives 100% by the teachings of the church, yet the JC of the global warming religion lives in higher contradiction to his own teachings than most of his environmental evangelicals who say things like 'well, just because he's a complete hypocrit doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with his message'!
{"commentId":563146,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":563499,"authorDomain":"dotdot"}
My response is directed a the general idea that 'do as i say' can be a good message while the person who says 'do as i say' is doing differently. My point is that, regardless of if a message is good or bad, if the person trying to spread that message does not follow it themselves, people who see that, are not going to be as willing to listen.
'well, just because he's a complete hypocrit doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with his message'!
Say for the sake of argument, that the above statement is true. That his message is good, but he is a hypocrite. If the message is good, it shouldn't matter that he is a hypocrite the message can stand on its own merits and people might follow it. But if people believe he is a hypocrite they may not even give the message a chance.
What I find absolutly appaling in this whole situation is the complete lack of willingness of people to admit that he is a hypocrite!
{"commentId":563499,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"dotdot"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":563948,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
Good points - my only contradiction to offer is that Gore is not only a spokesperson for this movement, he is practically the father of it. He has almost single-handedly propelled it from an annoyance into a raging obsession, so I think in this case it does throw the whole question of the validity of the message into play.
It's easy for elite's like Al and his friends to fly their private jets to cocktail parties in climate-controlled mansions with the glaring security lights and the heated multiple-car garages (to protect their multiple cars - and they ain't full of Prius's) while dictating to the little people who actually run this country to use mass transit and take out loans to install solar panels in their homes. If Al isn't going to be the source for credibility on this, then is it really credible?
{"commentId":563948,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":562389,"authorDomain":"thura"}
There are always people who cannot distinguish the message from the messenger. To most they are the one and the same and I think this is where the problem is.
Don't have to look far - happens everyday on the Vine - some guy seeds something that certain people disagree with or simply offends them. What happens? He/She gets flamed. Of course he/she might have seeded it just to get some hits, but ultimately it is just a seed. Besides, we don't know if he/she seeded it because it sounded interesting or agreed with the seed.
Personally I'd rather that we evaluate the message on it's own merits, rather than who the messenger is. But sometimes, we do want and expect the messenger to adhere to the message.
{"commentId":562389,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"thura"}
- 5 votes
#3 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 11:18 AM EST{"commentId":563585,"authorDomain":"gzirra"}
There is a big difference between a "messenger" and the "Champion of a Cause" or "Head of the Movement."
{"commentId":563585,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"gzirra"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":564380,"authorDomain":"thura"}
There is a big difference between a "messenger" and the "Champion of a Cause" or "Head of the Movement."
True, but still the question remains. What is more important? The message or the messenger. In the case of Gore he was both the Champ and the Messenger, but in a sense it is the message that matters not him.
{"commentId":564380,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"thura"}
{"commentId":564790,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
But what you have here is a message that is asking people to make a leap of faith despite the leaders of this movement not making that leap themselves. There's no evidence that the world is going to end if we don't stop driving SUVs. People like Gore are trying to make us believe that though. And if people like Gore aren't themselves taking the measures that they preach as seriously as they want us to believe they are, then how important is the message?
Your attitude towards this seems to only work if we simply buy what Gore is selling us lock, stock and barrel. Well, many of us don't subscribe to the message when the chief messenger is a hypocrit over it.
Not too long ago, I cited a website that analyzed election corruption. Since the board of this organization had Repubicans in it and most of the on-the-record examples of corruption were on the part of Democrats, people refused to believe the message because of the messenger. I even asked people to look beyond the 'who' and try to discredit the 'what', but most of them could not get past the 'who'.
I also recently referred to FBI agent Gary Aldriches book that covered Hillary Clinton's first Christmas in the White House that included photos of obscene tree ornaments that were supposed to go on the Blue Room Christmas tree. Again, I was slammed for citing this book because people rejected the message due to the messenger.
Does this suggestion that the message is still valid even if the messenger isn't apply to these scenarios as well, or only to things that you subscribe to?
{"commentId":564790,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":565123,"authorDomain":"thura"}
IMHO - and I do not wish to impose my point of view on others - I think it is tough separating the message from the messenger. But if I were to look at things objectively, I will "need," to separate these two. If the message is valid why should I care who brings it to me (or how). This is not always easy - but I try.
It is usually even harder on such emotionally charged issues. Not to bring another saying - but it's just like throwing out the baby along with the bath water.
Specifically in the Gore's electricity bill case, I think Gore lost credibility because of that. His message diluted.
{"commentId":565123,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"thura"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":562493,"authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}
Dennis...it all depends upon the circumstances, but generally I would prefer people think a bit before they spew forth an opinion in that way they will find it harder to get themselves in that position in the first place.
Forest
{"commentId":562493,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}
- 5 votes
#4 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 12:00 PM EST{"commentId":562553,"authorDomain":"zaki"}
Everybody's a hypocrite, it just depends how much of a hypocrite you are.
i.e. Ted Haggard preaching how bad homosexuality is, then goes have sex with a male prostitute and gets meth from him.
or Dick Cheney wanting to love just one homosexual, his daughter.
{"commentId":562553,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"zaki"}
- 4 votes
#5 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 12:24 PM EST{"commentId":562591,"authorDomain":"jasonford"}
or Rosie O'Donnell trying to take people's guns away except the ones that her children's body gaurds carry.
{"commentId":562591,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"jasonford"}
- 10 votes
{"commentId":562570,"authorDomain":"territan"}
Sorry Dennis, you obviously didn't get the memo.
If you don't like someone's message, shooting the messenger is as well-recognized a tactic for argument as disproving the message itself, and often a lot easier too. Because nobody else is perfect, everybody else's arguments are wrong unless they happen to agree with yours. Q.E.D.
{"commentId":562570,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"territan"}
- 4 votes
#6 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 12:30 PM EST{"commentId":563090,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
It's not an excuse to attack people on grounds of hypocrisy when the message doesn't suit you and you can't attack the message itself because it happens to be valid.
Going after someone for blatant hypocrisy is valid to show that not even the messenger abides by the message. We saw and heard this at the Oscars with wealthy elites instructing the little people on what they should do to help combat 'global warming' (take mass transit, use more efficient light bulbs, drive hideous little cars with pretentious names) yet if any one of these people (like Gore) were willing to reduce their luxurious lifestyle, they could do more than any of us to address this so-called crisis.
Daryl Hannah was on a talk show last week preaching about the environment and what all of the little people should be doing while admitting that she leads a very "high maintenance" life style! No one is holding a gun to her head and forcing her into luxury. This is as condescending as it is hypocratic.
Al Gore does not need to fly private jets and ride in limos and other gas hogs. Al Gore does not need 10,000 plus square-foot mansions that need to be heated and cooled while he's telling us to walk to get where we need to. And while he's profiting immensely from his propaganda and campaign of fear.
Why can't Al and Tipper live in a more modest, 2000 sq ft home? Why can't they do like the people they manipulate and fly commercial? The Commander-in-Chief who served in the NG can't conduct a war because he wasn't among the less than 1% of all draft age men who went to Vietnam. That kind of hypcrisy can be scorned.
So what of the leading messenger who doesn't live by the tenants of his own environmental message? Why does anyone take this clown seriously? Oh wait - because he offsets his abuses by funneling money back into his own pocket by purchasing 'carbon-footprint offsets' from...himself! How "valid" is the message when the messenger himself doesn't abide by it? It seems to me that criticizing hypocrisy is more than valid - it discredits his positions without adding credibility to them by taking them seriously. It's merely taking them as seriously as he does.
{"commentId":563090,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 3 votes
#7 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 4:26 PM EST{"commentId":563514,"authorDomain":"abdul-majid-1990"}
Dude!! Dude! Relax. Relax. Count slowly from 10 to 1. Deep. Slow. Breaths. Relax.
This article wasn't about what you think about Gore. You seem to be so wrapped up in your hate for Gore that you're making no sense.
Also, read up on "carbon credits" Go read Killfile's article instead of spouting nonsense here. Ya know, sometimes it's better to keep yer mouth shut and let others think you are a fool rather than opening it and removing all doubt.
{"commentId":563514,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"abdul-majid-1990"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":563957,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
Relax? Who said I wasn't relaxed?
Funny - you seem to be saying that a discussion of Gore's hypocrisy and it's effects on his message isn't a relevant response to an article that addresses hypocrisy and it's effect on the message, using Al Gore as one of two examples, and a related story as the other. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
No, I'm not going to read Killfile's article to re-educate myself. If I were to allow myself to be indoctrinated by him I would believe that communism can work without tyranny, Ahmadinejad is a really sweet guy and the best thing that could happen to us would be Iran getting nuclear weapons because gosh-darnit, it just isn't fair that they don't have them. I know that Killfile is a God to the Newsvine Left but you'll have to do better when trying to convince someone who believes that he is sorely misguided on a lot of things.
So Gore's been blacklisted from this message board. Okay...now what?
{"commentId":563957,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":563708,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
Dennis, human nature makes us instinctively reject the hypocrite's message, even if it is a true message. But it shouldn't be so. In one of His sermons, the Lord Jesus said: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practise what they preach" (Matthew 23:2-3). In other words: "Obey those who teach the Law. Yes, I know they're hypocrites -- obey them anyway".
So I have to agree with you article :-)
Cheers.
{"commentId":563708,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"paddy"}
- 3 votes
#8 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 9:22 PM EST{"commentId":564809,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
Here's another twist on why the hypocrisy of the messenger is relevant to the message: if Gore were to make drastic changes to his own lifestyle, get rid of the private jets, sell off the mansions, drop thel limo's, solely drive electric cars, use mass-transit when he can etc...would that help or harm his cause?
I think just the symbolism alone would do wonders for his cause - it would certainly make it harder for people to reject the message based on his own hypocrisy and probably convince many more people to join his movement.
What's more important to Al - his cause or his luxurious, elitist lifestyle that contradicts that cause? At this point, it seems to be the latter, which throws the validity of the cause into jeapordy.
Which then begs the question: why should we take it seriously if he doesn't?
{"commentId":564809,"threadId":"81186","contentId":"594452","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
- 2 votes
#9 - Sat Mar 3, 2007 6:21 PM EST{"canLink":false,"threadId":"81186","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
