Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is a word for it, but these people would never think of applying it to their peers because they themselves are the epitome of its meaning, which is in turn evidenced by their inability to recognize this fact: ignorance.
It’s proud ignorance. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being ignorant of something, as long as you don’t remain ignorant after learning about the thing and as long as you don’t take pride in it.
Yes, for the more informed among them, you could call it that, or:
“Strategic ignorance (also called deliberate ignorance or wilful blindness) is the intentional avoidance of information because possessing it would impose costs, obligations, or constraints that reduce expected utility.”
The cons sneer right in the face of any notion that they be held to any standard.
They laugh that everyone to the left of Newt Gingrich is held to standards - they view that gate-keeping as weakness, because THEY will feel absolutely no shame whatsoever about being flaming hypocrites and constantly engaging in logical fallacies, bad faith, etc…
Obviously, they will be right there, along with all the Elevated Centrist and liberal scolds, whenever a Democrat is found to not be as pure as the driven snow, or when a Democrat says something that has been debunked, etc. They will not apply that standard to Republicans.
Imagine being proud of your own hypocrisy
What else have they got to be proud of? Rape? Pedophiles? Treason? Insurrection? Grooming? Indoctrination?
There is a word for it, but these people would never think of applying it to their peers because they themselves are the epitome of its meaning, which is in turn evidenced by their inability to recognize this fact: ignorance.
It’s proud ignorance. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being ignorant of something, as long as you don’t remain ignorant after learning about the thing and as long as you don’t take pride in it.
Yes, for the more informed among them, you could call it that, or:
Somewhat sloppyly adapted from Sweeny et al. (2010) and Sims (2003).
The cons sneer right in the face of any notion that they be held to any standard.
They laugh that everyone to the left of Newt Gingrich is held to standards - they view that gate-keeping as weakness, because THEY will feel absolutely no shame whatsoever about being flaming hypocrites and constantly engaging in logical fallacies, bad faith, etc…
Obviously, they will be right there, along with all the Elevated Centrist and liberal scolds, whenever a Democrat is found to not be as pure as the driven snow, or when a Democrat says something that has been debunked, etc. They will not apply that standard to Republicans.
You have defined conservatism.
Like schadenfreude, there is probably a German compound word for aggressive ignorant hypocrisy