Lockdowns for Thee, but Not for Me | Hacker News Reader

Lockdowns for Thee, but Not for Me

joshuaschoenaker.com

21 pointsrayshan12 comments

What's the practical purpose of a site like this? I wish to see the actual argument drawn out. What is the therefore?

Because if the argument is "these people aren't taking it seriously, therefore we shouldn't either", that's clearly a flawed argument.

If it's "these people aren't taking it seriously, therefore they should be publicly shamed", what is the purpose of the shaming? Is it to shame them into rightly following the rules that they expect us to follow? Is that really the intent of a site like this?

I assume the conspiratorial viewpoint would be, "the people in charge of making the rules aren't following them, so the rules must not be important and are just a power-grab blah blah blah".

Which would pre-suppose that people in power are incapable of making mistakes.

I’ve always interpreted the word “mistake” as an unintended blunder. You forget to carry the two.

An act of hypocrisy implies person A asking/requiring others to act in manner X, and an intentional act by person A that is clearly not in manner X. In colloquial English, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

An intentional offense is not a mistake by the above definition, because it was intended and not accidental. It can be a tort, a criminal offense, a sin, an idiocy...but not that neutral word “mistake”.

Using the word “mistake” neuters the act of its moral import and implicitly absolves those who acted of moral failing.

Would you agree to the wording

“which would pre-suppose that people in power are incapable of an act devoid of judgement or awareness of their authority position as having just asked/required folks to do the opposite”

Because, in the case of politicians or anyone making their living from their fame, that is a act of gross professional incompetence.

It highlights hypocrisy, practically. Whether that is an appropriate 'therefore' is debatable. Personally, I do think some form of accountability around hypocrisy is necessary in our public leaders.

Sure, but to what end in this case? This is specifically about lockdowns. Leader is hypocritical about lockdowns, therefore he shouldn't behave that way? Or Leader is hypocritical about lockdowns, therefore we shouldn't have lockdowns?

Generally speaking, charges of hypocrisy can often be lazy like this. Someone pointing out hypocrisy should be clear about what behavior they are actually in favor of - the value without the hypocritical action, or, the action without the stated value?

As far as I can tell, nowhere on the site does the reasoning "therefore we shouldn't have lockdowns" actually follow from the presentation. It presents the hypocrisy and leaves it at that. Whether that is appropriate is up for debate of course, but we should be honest about what the site does and does not present, right?

Are you saying that hypocrisy should have no consequences and so it shouldn’t be pointed out?

No, I'm saying that someone pointing out hypocrisy should be clear about what behavior they are actually in favor of - the value without the hypocritical action, or, the action without the stated value.

Does every page on the internet have to have a practical purpose? This guy's saying that "they're hypocrites!", which seems fair enough to me.

leaders should lead

otherwise they are just rulers

Hypocrisy. This one summarizes it pretty well:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Newsom-attended...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com