5 ms·

It's interesting how charges of hypocrisy often have two completely opposite motivations. Both sides point out the inconsistency between the stated value and t

It's interesting how charges of hypocrisy often have two completely opposite motivations. Both sides point out the inconsistency between the stated value and the action, or, the "preaching" and the "practice". But the difference is in which side is favored. In the more common usage, the charge of hypocrisy comes from someone who is in favor of the stated value, the "preaching", and is opposed to the inconsistent act or "practice". In this case, the belief that the Governors should follow their own coronavirus restrictions. But you also see a lot of the opposite. People who rail against hypocrisy because they are against the stated value, and are more than fine with the "practice". In this case, people who are opposed to the coronavirus restrictions, but then are all too happy to scream hypocrisy anyway. The latter case really aggravates me. It almost makes me feel their charges of hypocrisy are hypocritical somehow. At least, I wish the difference would be pointed out more often. It really is a different phenomenon. I think the former case has more moral authority, and the latter case is bad faith. EDIT: Thanks for followup comments. After thinking about it more, I can think of plenty of other examples where I'm against the stated value and get aggravated at hypocrisy, so I guess I don't believe it is bad faith after all. The difference between the two motivations still interests me though and I wish more people would be clear on which side they fall on (when they charge hypocrisy).

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
If you're against the stated value, then having the value imposed by decree irks you. It's infuriating to see the one who imposed it on you acting in the way that you want to but now can't.
ummonk 6y ago
I'm someone who supports many (but not all) of the coronavirus restrictions, but I think the latter case is perfectly reasonable. The point people make is "these politicians are imposing stupid restrictions on us that they know are stupid as evidenced by the fact they won't abide the restrictions".
lordnacho 6y ago
Surely the second case is where you point out the hypocrisy because it means the hypocrite also does not believe their actions are needed, thus supporting the observer's belief? You could look at the UK where several government officials have broken the quarantine rules. You can see that as meaning they don't really think the rules are needed, but politics demands they act like something has been done. Someone who thinks the lockdown rules are unnecessary would point this out.
rayiner 6y ago
> The latter case really aggravates me. It almost makes me feel their charges of hypocrisy are hypocritical somehow. At least, I wish the difference would be pointed out more often. It really is a different phenomenon. I think the former case has more moral authority, and the latter case is bad faith. It’s not bad faith at all. It’s a way of saying “look, even the governor doesn’t believe this is as serious as she says it is.” That’s a totally fair criticism.
wutbrodo 6y ago
This doesn't make any sense. If someone is opposed to a policy, and they see the person mandating they follow the policy not adhering to it themselves, why wouldn't they rightfully be opposed to it? To remove the narrow-minded political context in which you're probably thinking of it, imagine how a supporter of abortion rights would feel about a pro-life governor flying his daughter out of state to get an abortion.
hnracer 6y ago
There's a big distinction there and I agree that the former has more moral authority. But I don't agree that the latter is necessarily bad faith. A lot of the motivation behind the latter is to criticise the perceived sanctimony and condescension of the authorities/media/"elites" who don't pay the price of small business lockdowns but dish out snark at the conservative anti-lockdown protestors, while secretly disobeying their own prescriptions. I believe this to be the psychology behind it.
a9h74j 6y ago
Importing the word value into the definition of hypocrisy seems at least subject to debate. One could also be declared hypocritical relative to some enforced meaningless behavior or in some "rules for thee but not not for me" sense. With politicians, there is also at stake the deeper value of they in particular supporting the rule of law.
filoleg 6y ago
I think it makes perfect sense logically as to why that would be the case. When a situation like this occurs, the side of the people who are pro-stated-value are disincentivized from critiquing other pro-stated-value people who are being hypocritical (not in the least, because it feels like hurting "your team"), while people who are anti-stated-value have absolutely no downsides or disincentives to criticizing hypocritical pro-stated-value individuals. So it makes sense why, given two opinion groups of about the same size, there will always be more of the anti-stated-value people being outraged and and doing criticizing.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

If you're against the stated value, then having the value imposed by decree irks you. It's infuriating to see the one who imposed it on you acting in the way that you want to but now can't.

ummonk 6y ago

I'm someone who supports many (but not all) of the coronavirus restrictions, but I think the latter case is perfectly reasonable. The point people make is "these politicians are imposing stupid restrictions on us that they know are stupid as evidenced by the fact they won't abide the restrictions".

lordnacho 6y ago

Surely the second case is where you point out the hypocrisy because it means the hypocrite also does not believe their actions are needed, thus supporting the observer's belief? You could look at the UK where several government officials have broken the quarantine rules. You can see that as meaning they don't really think the rules are needed, but politics demands they act like something has been done. Someone who thinks the lockdown rules are unnecessary would point this out.

rayiner 6y ago

> The latter case really aggravates me. It almost makes me feel their charges of hypocrisy are hypocritical somehow. At least, I wish the difference would be pointed out more often. It really is a different phenomenon. I think the former case has more moral authority, and the latter case is bad faith. It’s not bad faith at all. It’s a way of saying “look, even the governor doesn’t believe this is as serious as she says it is.” That’s a totally fair criticism.

wutbrodo 6y ago

This doesn't make any sense. If someone is opposed to a policy, and they see the person mandating they follow the policy not adhering to it themselves, why wouldn't they rightfully be opposed to it? To remove the narrow-minded political context in which you're probably thinking of it, imagine how a supporter of abortion rights would feel about a pro-life governor flying his daughter out of state to get an abortion.

hnracer 6y ago

There's a big distinction there and I agree that the former has more moral authority. But I don't agree that the latter is necessarily bad faith. A lot of the motivation behind the latter is to criticise the perceived sanctimony and condescension of the authorities/media/"elites" who don't pay the price of small business lockdowns but dish out snark at the conservative anti-lockdown protestors, while secretly disobeying their own prescriptions. I believe this to be the psychology behind it.

a9h74j 6y ago

Importing the word value into the definition of hypocrisy seems at least subject to debate. One could also be declared hypocritical relative to some enforced meaningless behavior or in some "rules for thee but not not for me" sense. With politicians, there is also at stake the deeper value of they in particular supporting the rule of law.

filoleg 6y ago

I think it makes perfect sense logically as to why that would be the case. When a situation like this occurs, the side of the people who are pro-stated-value are disincentivized from critiquing other pro-stated-value people who are being hypocritical (not in the least, because it feels like hurting "your team"), while people who are anti-stated-value have absolutely no downsides or disincentives to criticizing hypocritical pro-stated-value individuals. So it makes sense why, given two opinion groups of about the same size, there will always be more of the anti-stated-value people being outraged and and doing criticizing.