Does hypocrisy matter in discussions?

[Memfis]

If I make an argument for something and you point out that I bashed the idea in the past, does that invalidate what I'm saying? Or would you talking about my hypocrisy be like a logical fallacy since you're essentially talking about me rather than my argument? If I make a post today, how long am I expected to stand by my word? Can I contradict it in one month? What about a year? Is it a virtue to always speak about everything in a totally consistent manner? Because I feel that I don't really work like that. I can easily hate an idea one day and love it the next. I don't have "strong views" on most stuff because there are positives and negatives to just about anything, so I'm usually on the fence and depending on the day, one or another might outweigh its counterpart in my mind. And that kinda seems more human? In fiction my favorite characters are usually these that often lie to themselves, constantly act in a chaotic way and don't at all function like logical mechanisms. That just makes them so much more believable than everyone else. Hypocrites often seem like the only honest people around. Everyone else is like trying to appear to be this wise ass consistent flawless creature that can stand by everything it says any day, which can look rather fake.

[GarrettChan]

In my opinion, humans can't keep their consistency all the time, and probably our mood would change our view towards something. Sometimes I guess being subjective is more close to being a human. Also, there are some situations that you just forgot what you said before... If just talking about opinions to something, probably I should expect people may change all the time unless you have a strong opinion. For example, I think I won't change my mind in purple is my favorite color, but I may change my mind in which is my favorite food just depend on my mood.

 

Well, I hope I get the point and logic right. If not, never mind because my mind is somewhat all over the place.

[40oz]

Opinions change when new information becomes known. For most people anyway.

 

[Da Werecat]

Exactly what does that have to do with hypocrisy? Opinions evolve. I thought hypocrisy means not being honest with others or maybe even yourself.

 

Also, you seem to view this as rather black and white - either totally chaotic or "fake" consistensy?

[Nine Inch Heels]

17 minutes ago, Memfis said:

If I make an argument for something and you point out that I bashed the idea in the past, does that invalidate what I'm saying?

Nope... But it may beg the question what made you change your mind.

 

18 minutes ago, Memfis said:

Or would you talking about my hypocrisy be like a logical fallacy since you're essentially talking about me rather than my argument?

Good question... I think nailing people to their previous opinions is like nailing a martyr to a cross. Not a pretty sight, not much to gain either... I think I would simply wonder what made you change your mind, really...

 

20 minutes ago, Memfis said:

If I make a post today, how long am I expected to stand by my word? Can I contradict it in one month? What about a year?

That seems like an arbitrary concern to me. When you've changed your mind on a subject it's fine to say so.

 

22 minutes ago, Memfis said:

Is it a virtue to always speak about everything in a totally consistent manner? Because I feel that I don't really work like that.

Nobody does work like that all the time. And it's not a virtue to hold on to a former opinion for the sake of holding on to it. Assuming you changed your mind, not saying so would be dishonest, in my opinion.

 

24 minutes ago, Memfis said:

I can easily hate an idea one day and love it the next.

Not sure what I should say here. Either your feelings about certain ideas tend to change a lot by way of nature, or there's a chance you didn't think an idea through before deciding what kind of position to take. Or.. I dunno... Just trying to wrap my head around this...

 

27 minutes ago, Memfis said:

In fiction my favorite characters are usually these that often lie to themselves, constantly act in a chaotic way and don't at all function like logical mechanisms. That just makes them so much more believable than everyone else.

Maybe that's because you can relate to them better than to other characters? Or it's "comical" to see these characters? Or is it because these characters seem more emotional?

 

28 minutes ago, Memfis said:

Hypocrites often seem like the only honest people around.

I honestly don't understand this at all.

 

28 minutes ago, Memfis said:

Everyone else is like trying to appear to be this wise ass consistent flawless creature that can stand by everything it says any day, which can look rather fake.

Are we talking movies, or are we talking real life now? Because someone who is convinced of something IRL, has an easier time convincing others, usually...

[Mr. Freeze]

It's only hypocrisy if you don't own up to your actions. 

[Maes]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

It's only hypocrisy if you don't own up to your actions. 

Unless you can prove by some convoluted logic that precisely by apparently not owning up to your actions, you're actually owning up to them indirectly/in the long term/in the end/conditionally. Politicians are particularly skillful at that "art".

[Alfonzo]

If you expect others not to call you out by flagging up things you've said or done in the past, then you will somehow have to reconcile your wish to be part of a conversation with the reality that nothing you say will carry weight with anyone else. An honest account of your beliefs is what's important, despite its not precluding the ability to be thought of as an idiot or someone who's easily mislead. You would be an honorable idiot, really; and I would rather talk to that guy than the one who venerates his own ignorance with all the predictable desperation of the outcast.

[Maes]

10 minutes ago, Alfonzo said:

If you expect others not to call you out by flagging up things you've said or done in the past, then you will somehow have to reconcile your wish to be part of a conversation with the reality that nothing you say will carry weight with anyone else.

And yet, career politicians manage to both avoid/dodge being called out on their past contradictory sayings/actions, and continuing being taken seriously. Plus, you can always ignore a call out or attribute it to "misquoting", "propaganda", etc. or simply call your adversary "fascist" and liquidate him (you must be left-wing in order to play this trump card, though).

 

YMMV depending on your political alignment, the skill of your PR/spin team, whether you're still in power etc.

[Battle_Korbi]

I think most people call on hypocrisy when one turns up his opinion to the max level on the scale and disregards any other opinion because his opinion is "superior" and whatever.

 

In fact, compare following a opinion and following a person. It might be alright to say "X looks like a good guy", because if X suddenly decides to say "Wow I fucking want to murder a entire race of people because they are rats", no one would give you flak for backing down because you said X looked like a good guy until he proved himself not to be one (unless a X hater heard you say beforehand, and the best you would get is "Well, is X a good guy now?")

 

However, going like "OMFG X IS A GOD AMONG MEN I WANT TO SUCK HIS DOLONGO DODONGO AND HAVE HIS KIDS AND I WILL NEVER STOP FOLLOWING HIM", and X does his jam, and you back down, you just broke your promise and you told a lie. People won't get good vibes from that statement and action, and in order to prevent such stupid irregularities to happen again, or to teach you a lesson, they start calling you a hypocrite, so you could take the sign that that kind of behavior is bad as betraying one's trust, and that you shouldn't do that if you want your opinion to have value among people. Because, who can take someone's words for granted if they often keep lying to themselves and exaggerating over the nominal line?

 

And there you go kids. Remember, take a second or three before deciding to swear your life on something and someone, to think of what to do should your loyalty ever be in doubt, or even danger.

 

And this kind of stuff obviously appears to be mostly related to politics. And politics are related to facebook shitposts. Coincidence?

 

^{I should start doing something useful with my life.}

[Maes]

In the case of such a glaring contradiction, the usual political/corporate response is to simply maintain radio silence, issue a "no comment" statement or a non-apology apology, or redirecting attention somewhere else depending on the case. Everyone seems to accept it and carry on with their lives/other matters afterwards.

[Memfis]

Actually the whole idea of hypocrisy is a bit new\weird for me. In Russian I think we don't really have a popular word for this concept? I guess there is "лицемерие" but I feel like it's not used that often, has a bit different nuance, and sounds kinda old\pompous. I only started thinking about these things seriously when I entered the English segment of the internet. Reminds me of how some guy was trying to find equivalents of various logical fallacies in Japanese but didn't get any particularly satisfying answers because these concepts are apparently not very big in Japan. Kinda fascinating how sometimes a thing begins to exist for you only when you know that there is a word for it.

[40oz]

29 minutes ago, Battle_Kirby said:

I WANT TO SUCK HIS DOLONGO DODONGO

I love this

[Battle_Korbi]

11 minutes ago, Memfis said:

Actually the whole idea of hypocrisy is a bit new\weird for me. In Russian I think we don't really have a popular word for this concept? I guess there is "лицемерие" but I feel like it's not used that often, has a bit different nuance, and sounds kinda old\pompous. I only started thinking about these things seriously when I entered the English segment of the internet. Reminds me of how some guy was trying to find equivalents of various logical fallacies in Japanese but didn't get any particularly satisfying answers because these concepts are apparently not very big in Japan. Kinda fascinating how sometimes a thing begins to exist for you only when you know that there is a word for it.

Funny enough "Licemjerje" (licemerje, licemere) always meant "hypocritic" to me, but I kinda encountered the same with sarcasm. In Croatia, especially rular areas, that was just called "mocking someone" or "acting crazy", but still, I managed to adapt quickly.

[Maes]

Is that related to a popular belief that Russians and/or other Slavs don't "get" sarcasm? Also why Russians don't smile.

[Alfonzo]

55 minutes ago, Maes said:

And yet, career politicians manage to both avoid/dodge being called out on their past contradictory sayings/actions, and continuing being taken seriously.

I think there's a degree to which we tolerate the rhetoric of the politician with his reneging on promises almost to a deadline—an hypocrisy, no less!—because we see them as these pathetic characters who are very bad at balancing their humanity and obligations behind this hilarious landscape that we help to perpetuate. Watching them struggle to navigate the Mountain of Conflict in an effort to lose the pursuers of accountability, failing almost as often as they succeed... I think we just prefer not to see our politicians as humans. We know we should care, because it ultimately affects us, but we also really, really, really like daytime television.

 

It's a big problem. It's a comedy, too, but one that we can't afford to enjoy too much.

[GarrettChan]

26 minutes ago, Memfis said:

Reminds me of how some guy was trying to find equivalents of various logical fallacies in Japanese but didn't get any particularly satisfying answers because these concepts are apparently not very big in Japan.

I'm very curious about this, so may I know what is that logical fallacy?

[Battle_Korbi]

14 minutes ago, Maes said:

Is that related to a popular belief that Russians and/or other Slavs don't "get" sarcasm?

Ehh, that belief is partially true. Either someone will completely miss the point and interpet a sarcastic response as genuine or will get offended. Usually the case with elders, like:

 

"You will X I swear on (random saint name here)!"

"Okay ma/pa/baba/gospodin/person older than me, I will just do that"

Case 1: "That settles it then! I want you too..."

Case 2: "DON'T YOU DARE TALK TO ME LIKE THAT YOUNG MAN I SWEAR...!"

 

But thanks to globalisation modern slavic teenagers can exchange sarcastic statements and replies like handshakes, and no one but already rivaling parties would get offended.

[Memfis]

46 minutes ago, GarrettChan said:

I'm very curious about this, so may I know what is that logical fallacy?

Well, here is the question in... question: https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/36720/japanese-names-for-logical-fallacies

[CapnClever]

7 hours ago, Memfis said:

Is it a virtue to always speak about everything in a totally consistent manner? Because I feel that I don't really work like that. I can easily hate an idea one day and love it the next. I don't have "strong views" on most stuff because there are positives and negatives to just about anything, so I'm usually on the fence and depending on the day, one or another might outweigh its counterpart in my mind. And that kinda seems more human?

Those very positives can become negatives, and vice versa, in a different context. I could play a Doom map and find it boring, citing specific evidence in that map, and another person could use the exact same evidence but paint a different perspective such that it is exciting. And neither of us would be wrong! It is our expectations related to beliefs that go beyond the map, our dispositions, that reflect upon the evidence to produce a particular opinion. This is why when I review a map I do my best to explain my position using naked observation and inference, from which others can either relate or object to, but still have an understanding as to how I arrived there. This is, of course, an ideal that I often fall short from, but I still do my best towards achieving it.

 

To be hypocritical, then, is to lack disposition and to suppose without ever arriving at a conclusion. Hypocrisy is a useful tool at the stage of premature learning: curiosity and uncertainty amidst an ocean of available standpoints is the fastest way to develop the building blocks of understanding. During this period, putting together an incomplete belief and watching it crumble to the weight of existing evidence will often happen and should be expected. If one wants to be treated seriously, however, one must construct a fundamental assumption, an axiom, that holds up against others in spite of differences. While this doesn't manifest overtly in discussion, it is nevertheless evident after noticing patterns in the explanations of an individual. This is why hypocrisy is generally frowned upon when it comes to belief in one's views.

 

So really, it's not whether or not your opinion has weight given available evidence, but whether or not your opinion has weight without it. That's where hypocrisy comes into play. And because evidence only rarely comes into play in most casual discussions, there's always value to be found in someone who has demonstrated their understanding time and time again. If you're wishy-washy, you don't get that privilege. Along a similar vein: if you don't have a strong view on something, then address observation and known evidence instead of asserting a weak view that is easily mocked or shot down.

 

EDIT: I was defining "hypocritical" as "hypo-critical" (or "lacking critical thinking", like how "hypothermic" is "lacking heat") when it has a completely different meaning. Nevermind most of the above! Hypocrisy is more about assuming a moral facade that isn't followed in practice, and has very little to do with pure discussion. On the forums, it'd be like saying "everyone should avoid using click-baity thread names" and then making a bunch of threads such as "Doom2 is better than Doom1" and "Why did I waste so much time playing this" and "6 Reasons Moderators are Assholes". So yes, people are going to catch you for that, in a "practice what you preach" way: it's not about making a contradictory statement, it's about setting a double-standard between you and everyone else.

Edited May 29, 2017 by CapnClever : complete misunderstanding

[Linguica]

The problem with the hypocrite is not that they are taking a different stance on something than they used to, but that they refuse to reconcile them and usually either ignore the contradiction entirely or else provide a convoluted explanation for why the positions were not REALLY inconsistent. In any event, they thereby show themselves to not be arguing in good faith, and it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone that way.

[Gez]

7 hours ago, Memfis said:

If I make an argument for something and you point out that I bashed the idea in the past, does that invalidate what I'm saying? Or would you talking about my hypocrisy be like a logical fallacy since you're essentially talking about me rather than my argument?

Changing one's mind isn't hypocritical. It's hypocritical if you didn't change your mind, but pretend to.

 

If I steal your wallet and then make a big speech about how stealing is wrong (but doesn't give you your wallet back), I'm being hypocritical. If I complain about somebody else doing something I'm doing to, I'm hypocritical. But if I just used to say, for example, "<whatever> sucks" and now I'm saying "you know, after thinking about it some more, actually <whatever> rocks" it's not hypocrisy.

[Maes]

6 minutes ago, Gez said:

If I steal your wallet and then make a big speech about how stealing is wrong (but doesn't give you your wallet back), I'm being hypocritical. If I complain about somebody else doing something I'm doing to, I'm hypocritical.

Aha, but even in those cases, you can rationalize your actions and demonize your adversary by saying "but it's not wrong in particular to steal from X because of Y", or "I'm entitled to do X, but Y isn't. We're not the same", "Do as I say, not as I do", "Your rules are not my rules (and viceversa)" etc. Very frequently used in real life, and at the core of many religious and political beliefs.

[Gez]

Having some half-assed justifications doesn't make hypocrisy less hypocritical.

 

I mean, there are some situations where some exception to a general rule can actually be justified and logically coherent. But usually, the kind of things you're talking about? 100% hypocrisy.

[Koko Ricky]

If you don't experience contradiction or hypocrisy in your thinking, then you're not thinking very deeply.

[Arctangent]

52 minutes ago, Gez said:

Having some half-assed justifications doesn't make hypocrisy less hypocritical.

 

I mean, there are some situations where some exception to a general rule can actually be justified and logically coherent. But usually, the kind of things you're talking about? 100% hypocrisy.

I feel like one of those exceptions is some smelly old dude telling a bunch of younger people not to get into smoking at the very moment he's choking on a cigarette.

 

That's always the one example I come back to when I think about how being hypocritical about something doesn't necessarily remove your point. Sometimes, the person with the most perspective on the tides is the one who's being dragged under by them.

[Maes]

1 hour ago, Gez said:

Having some half-assed justifications doesn't make hypocrisy less hypocritical.

That's why such half-assed justifications are often masqueraded with the prestige and authority of a religion, a divine message, an awesome new "-ism" etc. Then it becomes much harder -or even dangerous- to argue against them.

[GarrettChan]

6 hours ago, Memfis said:

Well, here is the question in... question: https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/36720/japanese-names-for-logical-fallacies

Interesting to know these. Probably I'm talking about this from a Chinese perspective being a little bit off topic, but I'm curious in these too. Oh god, it's so difficult to put these together in my non native language.

 

First of all, I want to make sure that I understand what "лицемерие", or "hypocrisy" is. I checked dictionary for what hypocrisy is, and checked wikipedia for what лицемерие is. There's a same Chinese term represents this, literally means "fake goodness". As far as my understanding goes, the situation that "someone is always talking moral stuff nicely, but he/she doesn't really act like that" is a sort of hypocrisy?

 

Then, talking about the translation of the fallacies, I found that both Chinese and Japanese terms are pretty close, and I actually didn't know these terms before although I knew those being fallacies after looking into the real meaning. The question talking about discussing not-well-known fallacies (to the culture) to a person, and what I think is this depends on whether the person wants to accept new stuff, rather than being a cultural problem. I guess you just put this up as an example, so you don't really have an attitude towards it?

[everennui]

8 hours ago, Memfis said:

Kinda fascinating how sometimes a thing begins to exist for you only when you know that there is a word for it.

The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows

[Maes]

2 hours ago, Arctangent said:

I feel like one of those exceptions is some smelly old dude telling a bunch of younger people not to get into smoking at the very moment he's choking on a cigarette.

Well, in that case his rationale would be that it's too late for him anyway -so why deprive himself of one of his last remaining pleasures-, but not for you, young Padawan ;-)