Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Talk:Bristol Palin

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the liberal version of slut shaming...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Honest question: Is pointing out the hypocrisy of having two children out of wedlock while being one of the faces and loudest advocates of abstinence only education the same as slut-shaming? I personally think identifying the conflict between her advocacy and her own choices can be done without making a value judgement on her per-marital sex. Touchy issue to be sure, but i don't think it's much different than pointing out Phyllis Shlafly's advocacy for stay at home motherhood and traditional gender role, while not practicing either herself. Petey Plane (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a good point that the person who is trying to shame others in keeping their legs closed, collecting tens of thousands of dollars, can't keep hers closed. If she had the kids without trying to shame others I am not sure if it would have made the news. It's not that she is having sex, it's that she is scamming people with her hypocritical nonsense and acting like the blessed of god while getting the D that makes others sinful and vile. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Abstinence only does not work. If there is one constant in human history, it is that teenagers are horny. Any policy that ignores this basic fact is not worth the paper on which it is written Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
That of course, is true. Abstinence only is the biggest bullshit eva.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Do we have an article on that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Bristol provides a good example though. Her income is based on telling people not to have sex, and certainly not be knocked up, before marriage...and she can't seem to stop doing it. Even though those who do should be viewed with scorn for their slutty behavior in her talks. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly agree with pointing out inconsistencies between what people say and what people do, and I personally love telling people how to practice their religion. But in the end, making a huge deal out of hypocrisy when it's one of the most common human qualities is kind of... hypocritical? Either way, a much more effective approach, in my opinion, is to praise the Palin family for their progressiveness to the point they feel utterly embarrassed. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's a more difficult, but certainly more interesting (and fun), way to do things. I don't see what's hypocritical of pointing out another's hypocritical behavior because, it's common? That's really an odd way of thinking. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
What is the technical term for "everybody does that"? It is also a type of justification / logical fallacy Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It's usually part of the Argumentum ad populum. "Everyone" is also not entirely truthful at some point, which we find in a negative light or can be jailed if you do it in certain circumstances. "Everyone" also doesn't drive perfectly at some point, but it doesn't mean we let people go that do it so badly they harm property, hurt or kill others. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Pointing it out wasn't the issue. I was talking more specifically about making a huge deal out of it (when it's actually a very common human trait). But maybe "hypocritical" wasn't the best choice of word. "Disproportionate" perhaps? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a huge deal to me...it's not like she is being jailed, fined, or even losing speaking venues. It's just that she says and does things that she says are wrong, repeatedly, and makes money based on that. People think that is wrong and are expressing themselves based on what they think of that. I see this along the lines of people making money lip syncing to a tape of someone else singing. It's not an equivalent lie to saying someone's baby is cute when it looks like Quasimodo, or hypocrisy to say lying is wrong...but in that instance it's kind of okay to keep the peace. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It's only a "deal" at all because she is a public figure who has crafted most of her persona around advocating for abstinence-only education, which she herself clearly does not believe in or practice. Such rank hypocrisy in public figures should be exposed and discussed. While most of us are hypocrites to some extent at different points in our lives, most of us are not afforded a platform to nationally promote that hypocrisy, or generously compensated for said hypocrisy. She's not just like "everyone" in that everyone doesn't have national media resources at their beck and call.Petey Plane (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, the fact that the fraud that is abstinence-only is still promoted in much of the US education system is a "huge deal", and the fraudulent nature of the hucksters that promote it is fair game. I think that is completely separate that making value judgements on a person's sex life, which i don't see this as being about at all.Petey Plane (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly agree the dismal state of US sex ed is a huge deal. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fuck abstinence Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

here here. Unbelievable that the utter fraud that it represents is still controlling sexual education in large swaths of the US. Petey Plane (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)