It's not necessarily hypocrisy. People often have several different things they support, and it is quite common that something that advances one of those thing

It's not necessarily hypocrisy. People often have several different things they support, and it is quite common that something that advances one of those things impedes another of those things. They could limit themselves to actions that do not impede any of their goals, but those actions also often only minimally advance any of their goals. Often the fastest and most efficient way to achieve all of the goals is to do things that cause big advances on some of them even if they also cause backsliding in others. Example: let us say you have two goals. These are your available actions: 1. An action that makes a 1% advance toward both goals (% measured relative to the total work needed to accomplish that goal from start to finish). 2. An action that makes a 20% advance on goal #1 but sets you back 5% on goal #2. 3. An action that makes a 20% advance on goal #2 but sets you back 5% on goal #1. You can do one action per month. If you just use the action that doesn't set back any of your goals, it takes a little over 8 years to achieve both goals If you alternate actions #2 and #3, then every 2 months you end up gaining 15% net on both goals. It takes about 14 months now to achieve both goals.