If one is forced to live in a situation, is advocating for a different situation a sign of hypocrisy?

[Slartibartfast]

Here are some examples:

- One may prefer to live a purely libertarian or communist lifestyle, but nowhere on earth is that available so they make the best of their present situation. Are they a hypocrite for living in a different type of economy?

- One may be in an unhappy marriage or job and prefer to live a different lifestyle, but are prevented from changing it due to cultural expectations, kids, or other things. Are they a hypocrite for staying in that marriage?

- One may prefer the policies or a red or blue area but live in the alternative due to job availability or family needs. Are they a hypocrite for not moving?

 

[BirdinHand]

If all they do is whine about their situation and do nothing to change it, yes.

If - for example - one doesn’t believe in government and thinks that the ideal is to live in a society where there is no government…shouldn’t they be working towards moving off grid somewhere?

If - for example - someone is unhappy in their marriage, job, etc - should they continually just bitch about it or should they be actively working a plan to change it?

 

[Questerr]

 

[Cameron]

Here are some examples:

- One may prefer to live a purely libertarian or communist lifestyle, but nowhere on earth is that available so they make the best of their present situation. Are they a hypocrite for living in a different type of economy?

No, unless they are claiming that likeminded people should abandon their communities and start their own on an island somewhere.

- One may be in an unhappy marriage or job and prefer to live a different lifestyle, but are prevented from changing it due to cultural expectations, kids, or other things. Are they a hypocrite for staying in that marriage?

If this person were encouraging others to leave unhappy marriages but not doing so themself, then it would be hypocritical.

- One may prefer the policies or a red or blue area but live in the alternative due to job availability or family needs. Are they a hypocrite for not moving?

Only if this person is telling others they should do so and not practicing what they preach.

^My point is that to be hypocritical, you have to hold or express a view that is directly or very closely counter to what you actually practice.

 

[ASHES]

Decisions made under abuse or coercion are not free will. Some of the will breaking through to be free is not a sign of hypocrisy but courage.

 

[Mr Person]

Here are some examples:

- One may prefer to live a purely libertarian or communist lifestyle, but nowhere on earth is that available so they make the best of their present situation. Are they a hypocrite for living in a different type of economy?

But there *are* areas on Earth where formal government does not extend power. They're infested with warlords. And if the Big L Libertarians got their way, they'd just see that their utopia would be immediately nullified by more corporate-style warlords.

If they were right that an awesome freedom utopia would result from getting rid of formal government, you'd think they'd move to where there is no formal government to see how awesome it is. They don't. Why? Because despite saying they believe in this awesome government-free freedom utopia, they know perfectly damn well that it's an impossibility. It's not simply that a society like they claim to want is "unavailable". It's that it's impossible.

So they sit here enjoying the benefits of the existence of formal government, ranting about government-shouldn't-this/government-shouldn't-that, knowing full well they'll never actually have to live in the kind of world they say would be best. Of course, nobody is "forcing" them to live in any particular place so...

Sure there is some hypocrisy in their belief. And naivety. And idiocy.




That's a far cry from simply advocating for some limited change, like saying we need to raise taxes to pay for what we spend but not trying to donate extra money to the government. Why? Because one individual doing that has an irrelevant effect on deficits. The only impact would be from changing tax law.

Why else? Because one (libertarian) says "I want to live somewhere where NONE of this is true" while the other (tax) says "I want to live here, but I want this one thing to change". It's a different assertion.

Thinking a change like that should be made while still living here is orders of magnitude different from the pure libertarian who makes no effort to try to move off grid and get anyone to live with them.

That said, these libertarians put their money where their mouth was (well, invaded the town, but anyway)....

How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears

Seriously, this happened. You should absolutely read about it.

www.vox.com

......and ****ed everything up. Because Big L Libertarianism is ****ing stupid. Because not having sanitation and instead letting people toss their trash wherever they want in a NH town is how you get bears.

 

[btthegreat]

If all they do is whine about their situation and do nothing to change it, yes.

If - for example - one doesn’t believe in government and thinks that the ideal is to live in a society where there is no government…shouldn’t they be working towards moving off grid somewhere?

If - for example - someone is unhappy in their marriage, job, etc - should they continually just bitch about it or should they be actively working a plan to change it?

None of these represent hypocrisy. 'Whining'is about something but not making an effort to change it may be lazy, or stupid etc but it is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when there is a disconnect between what they say OTHER people should do or not do, and what they themselves do or do not do. If they tell others not to stay in an unhappy marriage, while they stay in an unhappy marriage, that may be hypocrisy. If they talk about how horrible their brother is, for being a thief, while they bring home staplers, pens, tape, and the paper cutter from the office, you can say they are a hypocrite.

 

[Napoleon]

Yes. You either walk the talk or you don’t. No one is “forcing” you to live in a particular way.

 

[Visbek]

Here are some examples:

- One may prefer to live a purely libertarian or communist lifestyle, but nowhere on earth is that available so they make the best of their present situation. Are they a hypocrite for living in a different type of economy?

- One may be in an unhappy marriage or job and prefer to live a different lifestyle, but are prevented from changing it due to cultural expectations, kids, or other things. Are they a hypocrite for staying in that marriage?

- One may prefer the policies or a red or blue area but live in the alternative due to job availability or family needs. Are they a hypocrite for not moving?

This seems like a very weird question, because there is no one single answer. I'm also wondering if there is some agenda behind it. Anyway....

Basically, it's only hypocrisy if the individual is contradicting one of their own beliefs.

If you have no choice, in most cases that isn't hypocritical. There will be exceptions, of course. E.g. the individual may insist that they have agency in a given situation, when in reality they don't.

As to the examples:

You aren't necessarily a hypocrite if your personal utopia doesn't exist. However, you can still be a hypocrite if you are, say, a libertarian who exults in the use of state power to restrict liberties.

You aren't a hypocrite if you are stuck in a bad marriage in a society with no legal methods to end it. Using marriage to hide one's sexual orientation in a society where that is stigmatized or illegal is complicated -- e.g. it can certainly be unfair to lie to your spouse for years about your orientation -- but that's not necessarily hypocrisy unless you are simultaneously and loudly professing your hatred of LGBT individuals. Or: You are a hypocrite if you spent years telling people that divorce is unethical, and get divorced anyway.

You're not necessarily a hypocrite if you choose to live in an area where your political preferences diverge from your neighbors. (Nor is that necessarily an example of being forced to live somewhere.) In fact, at least some nations recognize that you have the right to advocate for change in your community.

However, if you heavily criticize the political leanings of the area you live in, while taking for granted the advantages offered by that area, then you're a hypocrite -- regardless of your options to move. For example, if you're a hard-core conservative who wants local government cut to the bone, and then complain when the city cuts back trash collection from 2 nights a week to once every 2 weeks, you're a hypocrite.

Or, let's say it's 1975, you live in the USSR, you hate Communism, you want to leave, but you can't. Are you a hypocrite if you publicly support the government of the USSR, especially if you're making public statements of support in order to try and create an opportunity to defect? I'd say no.

Or, if you live in New York City and push for more gun control measures, while driving to Virginia to buy firearms that you can't legally buy in NYC, you're a hypocrite.

Or, many of the politicians who voted for Prohibition in the 30s also violated those anti-alcohol laws. (FYI, George Cassiday was a bootlegger who provided alcohol to members of Congress, including many who voted for Prohibition. )

 

[LouC]

If one is forced to live in a situation, is advocating for a different situation a sign of hypocrisy?​

If one willfully and happily chose to live "in a situation" then goes about "advocating" for a "different situation" i.e. advocating to change that situation, now that might be a sign of hypocrisy.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This seems like a very weird question, because there is no one single answer. I'm also wondering if there is some agenda behind it. Anyway....

No particular agenda. I've noticed that accusations of hypocrisy seem to be more prevalent than usual the last few days, so I started getting curious about perspectives.

 

[Daisy]

No...forced is the key word...

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Hypocrisy exists when one's rhetoric contradicts one's behavior.

For example, if one advocates restricting access to abortion while actively seeking abortion services for themselves or someone close to them, that is hypocrisy.

When one rails against the 'perversions of homosexuality' while secretly engaging in gay sexual behavior, that is hypocrisy.

When one points out some flaw in another's character while secretly harboring that same flaw in themselves, that is hypocrisy.

When one publicly advocates for one position and privately lobbies against the same, that is hypocrisy.

 

[Visbek]

No particular agenda. I've noticed that accusations of hypocrisy seem to be more prevalent than usual the last few days, so I started getting curious about perspectives.

Riiiiiiiiiiight

I'm sorry, but that just seems a bit silly. People constantly hurl accusations of hypocrisy around. The only reason I can imagine any alleged increase would be because, well, let's face it: Republicans and conservatives are constantly exposing their own hypocrisy as Dear Leader keeps pulling the rug out from under them.

And yes, Democrats / progressives are hypocrites, and partisanship colors our perceptions of hypocrisy. But yeah, it's absolutely massive on the Republican/conservative side over the past year or so.

Would you like a list of all the concepts the right espoused for decades, that are getting eviscerated under Dread Lord Drumpf? I've already got it written up.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Riiiiiiiiiiight

I'm sorry, but that just seems a bit silly. People constantly hurl accusations of hypocrisy around. The only reason I can imagine any alleged increase would be because, well, let's face it: Republicans and conservatives are constantly exposing their own hypocrisy as Dear Leader keeps pulling the rug out from under them.

And yes, Democrats / progressives are hypocrites, and partisanship colors our perceptions of hypocrisy. But yeah, it's absolutely massive on the Republican/conservative side over the past year or so.

Would you like a list of all the concepts the right espoused for decades, that are getting eviscerated under Dread Lord Drumpf? I've already got it written up.

It could be that the threads I currently am in have more accusations that I am used to which is my own bias given my samples. Not sure. It could also be that I am just in a mood today.

 

[ASHES]

If one is forced to live in a situation, is advocating for a different situation a sign of hypocrisy?​

If one willfully and happily chose to live "in a situation" then goes about "advocating" for a "different situation" i.e. advocating to change that situation, now that might be a sign of hypocrisy.

The original choice could have been a double bind, or made under coercion or duress. Also possible, is the situation could have changed later on, slowly, with realization not happening until the situation was inescapable. They are still responsible for escaping, but before they can, they have to see the cage, and protest the cage, internally and externally.

 

[ASHES]

The original choice could have been a double bind, or made under coercion or duress. Also possible, is the situation could have changed later on, slowly, with realization not happening until the situation was inescapable. They are still responsible for escaping, but before they can, they have to see the cage, and protest the cage, internally and externally.

Alternatively the solution is to make peace with the cage. A lot in this situation do this and not always of free will.

 

[quip]

Here are some examples:

- One may prefer to live a purely libertarian or communist lifestyle, but nowhere on earth is that available so they make the best of their present situation. Are they a hypocrite for living in a different type of economy?

- One may be in an unhappy marriage or job and prefer to live a different lifestyle, but are prevented from changing it due to cultural expectations, kids, or other things. Are they a hypocrite for staying in that marriage?

- One may prefer the policies or a red or blue area but live in the alternative due to job availability or family needs. Are they a hypocrite for not moving?

It seems you're constructing some false dilemmas.
You're pitting idealism against pragmatism.

I'd say staying put, as less hypocrisy and more a clarion call for progressive change.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It seems you're constructing some false dilemmas.
You're pitting idealism against pragmatism.

I'd say staying put, as less hypocrisy and more a clarion call for progressive change.

I gave an idealized libertarian world as a possible example.

 

[hecatmoggie]

- One may be in an unhappy marriage or job and prefer to live a different lifestyle, but are prevented from changing it due to cultural expectations, kids, or other things. Are they a hypocrite for staying in that marriage?

On this one .... staying in a marriage you don't want to be in is robbing the other person of Time with lies/deception/manipulation/exploiting/abusing

Time is something nobody can ever get back

nobody is "forced" .... those are all choices made

 

[Slartibartfast]

On this one .... staying in a marriage you don't want to be in is robbing the other person of Time with lies/deception/manipulation/exploiting/abusing

Time is something nobody can ever get back

nobody is "forced" .... those are all choices made

Perhaps it is and perhaps its a battered woman who is so demoralized that she wants out but can't find a way. The level of empowerment someone has plays a factor.

 

[StillBallin75]

"You hate capitalism, yet you live in capitalism and buy MacBook and drink Starbucks hurr durr"

 

[Gardener]

I was in an unhappy marriage, but my duties as a father outweighed my dissatisfaction with my relationship with my wife.

I didn't feel like a hypocrite at all for staying. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Perhaps it is and perhaps its a battered woman who is so demoralized that she wants out but can't find a way. The level of empowerment someone has plays a factor.

and still choices and decisions are made - always

 

[Slartibartfast]

and still choices and decisions are made - always

The conditions that one makes choices in is a huge factor I think. In my view, if someone is being abused to the point that their self confidence is shattered, then that's far less hypocritical (if hypocritical at all) than someone who has full self actualization and the associated resources are their disposal and they make a pure moral and unconstrained choice.