Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Hypocrisy in Politics

ChrisF
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 9:01:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is basically a thread to post things you find hypocritical about a certain person or group's political beliefs. No trolling, please!

So, I was thinking to myself earlier today, and realized something hypocritical about typical conservative beliefs about gun control and military funding. Please note that I myself am in favor of limited gun control, as well as military intervention in some cases.

Basically, conservatives believe that we need guns in order to overthrow the government, should it become oppressive and tyrannical. This is exactly the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, so that the people can free themselves from a government that fails to represent them. Because of this, conservatives believe in limiting gun control, so that people have the weapons they need to secure their freedom.

Conservatives also believe that a strong military is necessary to preserve freedom and democracy, and that we should use the military to spread democracy elsewhere. In order to do this, they feel that the military needs to be heavily funded, as well as prisons, surveillance, and other measures to keep America safe.

Now, here is where the hypocrisy lies. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, who would they naturally be fighting? The military, the police, and other government agencies. By increasing funding for war, surveillance, and prisons, it makes it harder to fight against the government. And yet conservatives feel that we need guns in order to protect us from a government that is too oppressive, but at the same time are giving the government more power to oppress people. I just find this to be logically hypocritical.

So, where do you all see hypocrisy in politics?
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 9:21:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh geez, where do I begin! To be seen as fair, I'll post two instances of hypocrisy, one from the left, and one from the right.

Left: In 2007, both Obama and Biden said that Bush did not have the authority to unilaterally order a military strike on Iran. Biden went so far as to say that Bush should have been impeached if he went ahead and did so. A few years later, Obama asserted that he had the power to order a strike on Syria.

Right: Conservatives, like Rick Santorum, assert that they believe in both traditional values and limited government -- Santorum went so far recently as to say that winning elections should not take precedence over pushing for their "values." What he fails to realize, I think, is that seeking to throw doctors or women in jail by criminalizing abortion (it is to my knowledge that Rick only wants to imprison doctors, but I can't imagine a scenario where abortion is illegal, but women escape unscathed), or using the heavy hand of government to impose biblical principles and ban gay marriage, is incompatible with "small government."
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:33:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hypocritical Statement:
We need to do away with the 1% (said by liberal politicians)

Why it's hypocritical:
Bill Clinton has a net worth of 80 million dollars, Al Gore has a net worth of 300 million dollars, John Kerry has a net worth of 194 million dollars, Hillary Clinton has a net worth of 21.5 million dollars, Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of 100 million dollars, Obama has a net worth of 12.2 million dollars (rather low for a politician I admit), John F. Kennedy had a very high net worth, and there are countless others like this.
Republican politicians are also rich, but at least they're not denouncing "the 1 percent" like the rich liberal politicians are.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:36:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 9:01:48 PM, ChrisF wrote:
This is basically a thread to post things you find hypocritical about a certain person or group's political beliefs. No trolling, please!

So, I was thinking to myself earlier today, and realized something hypocritical about typical conservative beliefs about gun control and military funding. Please note that I myself am in favor of limited gun control, as well as military intervention in some cases.

Basically, conservatives believe that we need guns in order to overthrow the government, should it become oppressive and tyrannical. This is exactly the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, so that the people can free themselves from a government that fails to represent them. Because of this, conservatives believe in limiting gun control, so that people have the weapons they need to secure their freedom.

Conservatives also believe that a strong military is necessary to preserve freedom and democracy, and that we should use the military to spread democracy elsewhere. In order to do this, they feel that the military needs to be heavily funded, as well as prisons, surveillance, and other measures to keep America safe.

Now, here is where the hypocrisy lies. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, who would they naturally be fighting? The military, the police, and other government agencies. By increasing funding for war, surveillance, and prisons, it makes it harder to fight against the government. And yet conservatives feel that we need guns in order to protect us from a government that is too oppressive, but at the same time are giving the government more power to oppress people. I just find this to be logically hypocritical.

So, where do you all see hypocrisy in politics?

http://toddkinsey.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:18:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:33:02 AM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Hypocritical Statement:
We need to do away with the 1% (said by liberal politicians)

Why it's hypocritical:
Bill Clinton has a net worth of 80 million dollars, Al Gore has a net worth of 300 million dollars, John Kerry has a net worth of 194 million dollars, Hillary Clinton has a net worth of 21.5 million dollars, Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of 100 million dollars, Obama has a net worth of 12.2 million dollars (rather low for a politician I admit), John F. Kennedy had a very high net worth, and there are countless others like this.
Republican politicians are also rich, but at least they're not denouncing "the 1 percent" like the rich liberal politicians are.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com...

Who said anything about "doing away with the 1 percent?" Are you suggesting that liberal politicians are in favor of mass genocide?
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:22:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:18:40 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:33:02 AM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Hypocritical Statement:
We need to do away with the 1% (said by liberal politicians)

Why it's hypocritical:
Bill Clinton has a net worth of 80 million dollars, Al Gore has a net worth of 300 million dollars, John Kerry has a net worth of 194 million dollars, Hillary Clinton has a net worth of 21.5 million dollars, Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of 100 million dollars, Obama has a net worth of 12.2 million dollars (rather low for a politician I admit), John F. Kennedy had a very high net worth, and there are countless others like this.
Republican politicians are also rich, but at least they're not denouncing "the 1 percent" like the rich liberal politicians are.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com...

Who said anything about "doing away with the 1 percent?" Are you suggesting that liberal politicians are in favor of mass genocide?

This is what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:25:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:22:44 AM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/13/2014 11:18:40 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:33:02 AM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Hypocritical Statement:
We need to do away with the 1% (said by liberal politicians)

Why it's hypocritical:
Bill Clinton has a net worth of 80 million dollars, Al Gore has a net worth of 300 million dollars, John Kerry has a net worth of 194 million dollars, Hillary Clinton has a net worth of 21.5 million dollars, Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of 100 million dollars, Obama has a net worth of 12.2 million dollars (rather low for a politician I admit), John F. Kennedy had a very high net worth, and there are countless others like this.
Republican politicians are also rich, but at least they're not denouncing "the 1 percent" like the rich liberal politicians are.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com...

Who said anything about "doing away with the 1 percent?" Are you suggesting that liberal politicians are in favor of mass genocide?

This is what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, a movement that protested against income inequality, massive Wall Street bonuses -- after receiving hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money, even though the fraud and recklessness on Wall Street is what got us into this mess -- lack of prosecutions of bankers, the fact that 95% of the gains since the recovery have gone to the top 1 percent, the skewed tax system that benefits the affluent.....

I could go on, and on, and on. These are legitimate concerns, and have frankly nothing to do with this paranoid hysteria of mass genocide that you are insinuating exists.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:30:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:22:44 AM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/13/2014 11:18:40 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:33:02 AM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Hypocritical Statement:
We need to do away with the 1% (said by liberal politicians)

Why it's hypocritical:
Bill Clinton has a net worth of 80 million dollars, Al Gore has a net worth of 300 million dollars, John Kerry has a net worth of 194 million dollars, Hillary Clinton has a net worth of 21.5 million dollars, Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of 100 million dollars, Obama has a net worth of 12.2 million dollars (rather low for a politician I admit), John F. Kennedy had a very high net worth, and there are countless others like this.
Republican politicians are also rich, but at least they're not denouncing "the 1 percent" like the rich liberal politicians are.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com...

Who said anything about "doing away with the 1 percent?" Are you suggesting that liberal politicians are in favor of mass genocide?

This is what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, you cited the fact that many liberal politicians are in the top 1 percent as justification for your claim of hypocrisy. Here's where you're wrong: if they genuinely want to do away with the top 1 percent, they are attacking themselves -- going against their own self-interest. By advocating tax hikes, they're asking the government to raise their own taxes. This is actually not hypocrisy, but the mere opposite. Advocating for tax hikes, and then dodging taxes, is.

Or, in Romney's case, berating "47% of Americans" for being "lazy," then paying a lower overall tax bill than them, is massive hypocrisy.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:30:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:30:09 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/13/2014 11:22:44 AM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/13/2014 11:18:40 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:33:02 AM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Hypocritical Statement:
We need to do away with the 1% (said by liberal politicians)

Why it's hypocritical:
Bill Clinton has a net worth of 80 million dollars, Al Gore has a net worth of 300 million dollars, John Kerry has a net worth of 194 million dollars, Hillary Clinton has a net worth of 21.5 million dollars, Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of 100 million dollars, Obama has a net worth of 12.2 million dollars (rather low for a politician I admit), John F. Kennedy had a very high net worth, and there are countless others like this.
Republican politicians are also rich, but at least they're not denouncing "the 1 percent" like the rich liberal politicians are.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com...

Who said anything about "doing away with the 1 percent?" Are you suggesting that liberal politicians are in favor of mass genocide?

This is what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, you cited the fact that many liberal politicians are in the top 1 percent as justification for your claim of hypocrisy. Here's where you're wrong: if they genuinely want to do away with the top 1 percent, they are attacking themselves -- going against their own self-interest. By advocating tax hikes, they're asking the government to raise their own taxes. This is actually not hypocrisy, but the mere opposite. Advocating for tax hikes, and then dodging taxes, is.

Or, in Romney's case, berating "47% of Americans" for being "lazy," then paying a lower overall tax bill than them, is massive hypocrisy.

*lower overall tax rate
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:49:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 9:01:48 PM, ChrisF wrote:
This is basically a thread to post things you find hypocritical about a certain person or group's political beliefs. No trolling, please!

So, I was thinking to myself earlier today, and realized something hypocritical about typical conservative beliefs about gun control and military funding. Please note that I myself am in favor of limited gun control, as well as military intervention in some cases.

Basically, conservatives believe that we need guns in order to overthrow the government, should it become oppressive and tyrannical. This is exactly the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, so that the people can free themselves from a government that fails to represent them. Because of this, conservatives believe in limiting gun control, so that people have the weapons they need to secure their freedom.

Conservatives also believe that a strong military is necessary to preserve freedom and democracy, and that we should use the military to spread democracy elsewhere. In order to do this, they feel that the military needs to be heavily funded, as well as prisons, surveillance, and other measures to keep America safe.

Now, here is where the hypocrisy lies. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, who would they naturally be fighting? The military, the police, and other government agencies. By increasing funding for war, surveillance, and prisons, it makes it harder to fight against the government. And yet conservatives feel that we need guns in order to protect us from a government that is too oppressive, but at the same time are giving the government more power to oppress people. I just find this to be logically hypocritical.

So, where do you all see hypocrisy in politics?

I think your intentions are good but I have two immediate problems with your post that I think need airing.

First, you refer to trolling and when you do that it needs to be defined. Almost inevitably, on forums such as this, trolling is just a term being used by people to label opposing views to their own. Don't use the term. You will have more credibility if you don't. Objecting to specific instances of others taking the discussion off topic or other bad behaviour is more useful.

And secondly, when you warn that you are in favour of some military intervention in some cases you are telling us that you can be persuaded to favour it. And so, you will become the hypocrite yourself because inevitably you will favour most military intervention if it's your country and your political party that intervenes. You've in fact warned us of that.

Gun control in the US is so far off the wall at the moment that it's practically useless to even try to discuss it in an adult and responsible way.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:57:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The left, DFL, liberals:
Big business is bad.
Let's pass regulations that make it much more difficult for small businesses to compete, because large businesses can absorb the cost, assuming they weren't pushing for the regulation in the first place. (for example: minimum wage, license fees/requirements, Obamacare)

The right, GOP, conservatives:
Fiscal conservatives.... except let's spend military money like a drunken sailor on projects that even the military says they don't want.
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:04:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
GOP: Let's ban abortion! And we should also block any efforts to increase availability of contraceptives, even though that would decrease the amount of abortions more than anything else!

Uphold the Constitutions and its principles! Except for separation of church and state! And ignore the full faith and credit clause when we want to ban gay marriage!

Regulations are bad! Let's use them to force abortion clinics to close!

I could probably go on if I tried.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 12:46:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How about people who want to make a big, public fight against childhood obesity but then get angry that society makes people who are fat insecure
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 12:49:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 12:46:31 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
How about people who want to make a big, public fight against childhood obesity but then get angry that society makes people who are fat insecure

This strikes me as hypocritical.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 2:40:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, hypocrisy is pervasive and endemic in our political system and culture because our form of government and political life is inherently dishonest, is the dishonest outgrowth and facade of our society's plutocratic economic power structure. In other words, hypocrisy will always be an excessively rife feature of politics under capitalism, the only cure is the fundamental cure of abolishing the capitalist power relations of our society.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 2:47:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 12:49:49 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 12:46:31 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
How about people who want to make a big, public fight against childhood obesity but then get angry that society makes people who are fat insecure


This strikes me as hypocritical.

So your beautiful and enlightened approach to combating childhood obesity would be to socially stigmatize it and cause young people who suffer from it to experience feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem. Yes, yours is quite an advanced mentality. NOT!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 3:08:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:40:24 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, hypocrisy is pervasive and endemic in our political system and culture because our form of government and political life is inherently dishonest, is the dishonest outgrowth and facade of our society's plutocratic economic power structure. In other words, hypocrisy will always be an excessively rife feature of politics under capitalism, the only cure is the fundamental cure of abolishing the capitalist power relations of our society.

And by the way, bubbatheclown is quite correct, liberals are indeed inauthentic champions of the poor; they're just as thoroughly implicated in the socioeconomic status quo that disempowers and immiserates average Joe and Jane as their conservative counterparts (however, conservatives are more strident and aggressive advocates of society's capitalist power structure and power elite, which makes them less hypocritical but a good deal more dangerous and dastardly). We certainly can't count on liberals to administer to our body politic the necessarily radical medicine that history prescribes for its endemic hypocrisy and other ills (i.e., the abolition of plutocracy), only a fundamentally anti-capitalist and socialist movement will make a good faith attempt to and perhaps achieve such a feat.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 3:50:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 9:01:48 PM, ChrisF wrote:
This is basically a thread to post things you find hypocritical about a certain person or group's political beliefs. No trolling, please!

So, I was thinking to myself earlier today, and realized something hypocritical about typical conservative beliefs about gun control and military funding. Please note that I myself am in favor of limited gun control, as well as military intervention in some cases.

Basically, conservatives believe that we need guns in order to overthrow the government, should it become oppressive and tyrannical. This is exactly the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, so that the people can free themselves from a government that fails to represent them. Because of this, conservatives believe in limiting gun control, so that people have the weapons they need to secure their freedom.

Conservatives also believe that a strong military is necessary to preserve freedom and democracy, and that we should use the military to spread democracy elsewhere. In order to do this, they feel that the military needs to be heavily funded, as well as prisons, surveillance, and other measures to keep America safe.

Now, here is where the hypocrisy lies. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, who would they naturally be fighting? The military, the police, and other government agencies. By increasing funding for war, surveillance, and prisons, it makes it harder to fight against the government. And yet conservatives feel that we need guns in order to protect us from a government that is too oppressive, but at the same time are giving the government more power to oppress people. I just find this to be logically hypocritical.

So, where do you all see hypocrisy in politics?

I don't think your example points to a "hypocrisy". You're pointing out two kinds of conservatives...the kind that believe in a strong foreign policy perspective is a "generic" conservative, whereas the specific kind of "conservative" that believe in strong gun rights due to government oppression are more or less libertarian, and libertarianism currently is under the umbrella of conservatives for whatever reason. Many "generic" conservatives who believe in gun rights simply are constitutionalists that do not see any reason to challenge the Bill of Rights...after all, it is "tradition".

Of course you can take a different approach, and note that "traditional American values" (i.e. conservative values) are actually liberal. I think that's less hypocrisy than simply a false dichotomy that is pervasive in American politics, that being "liberal vs conservative". In reality, it is "socialism vs conservative liberals", and conservative = liberal in America.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 11:44:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:47:42 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/14/2014 12:49:49 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 12:46:31 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
How about people who want to make a big, public fight against childhood obesity but then get angry that society makes people who are fat insecure


This strikes me as hypocritical.

So your beautiful and enlightened approach to combating childhood obesity would be to socially stigmatize it and cause young people who suffer from it to experience feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem. Yes, yours is quite an advanced mentality. NOT!

Well, I was just pointing out that by waging a big publicized "war" against obesity, that contributes to the stigmatization of being fat. So, it is hypocritical to be mad at the media for doing the same thing.