superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,753
This entire thread is about hypocrisy, basically. I've said before and I'll say again: I think MAGAs view hypocrisy completely differently than non-MAGAs, especially educated non-MAGAs.
We -- i.e. the more educated class -- view ourselves as having some positive relationship with truth. Maybe we actively pursue truth in our lives through study and knowledge; or we acknowledge truth in practice; and we like our morality to be based in truth, because it feels more like morality that way. On this account, hypocrisy is a sign of weakness. There's no better way to refute an argument by a Dunning-Kruger type saying X than to show them saying not X at some other time.
To MAGA, hypocrisy is a feature. They see it as a privilege. They see it as something that rich and powerful people get to do, and thus they want that power. And of course, there is plenty of hypocrisy there. But to MAGA, minimizing hypocrisy is just for losers. To be powerful is to impose rules or requirements on others that you don't have to follow yourself.
Now, there are a couple of follow-ups, right? What a simpleton might see as hypocrisy is often a difference in context. The hypocrisy is explained away by subtlety. MAGA views subtlety as a trick. This is related to their aversion to study or knowledge. So when we say, "military intervention in Iraq is bad," they say, "well, Clinton intervened with military assistance in Kosovo, you're just being hypocritical." That the Kosovo intervention was a) wasn't and was never intended to be an occupation; that b) it was a clear case of self-defense for the Kosovars that we were helping with; c) that there were ongoing slaughters and had been for half a decade at least; d) it was not based on lies; and e) it was conducted by NATO under the US lead -- none of that matters to MAGA. It requires too much thought. They prefer to throw mud.
Second, everybody is a little bit hypocritical at times, no matter how we try to avoid it. That's because human cognition is imperfect. Sometimes hypocrisy isn't about bad faith; it's about not fully understanding the issue being discussed. Which is why, in educated circles, we point out hypocrisies and expect truth-seekers to minimize them, while taking that same criticism and adjusting our views in reciprocation.
Well, that's what happens in educated circles in theory. The reality is that nobody rises to prominence by admitting that their work was incorrect. Changing your views in response to criticism is not a way to get published or get tenure. That's what I learned in the policy world when I was thinking about going into it. Policy people just aren't always that concerned about results; they are more interested in being a mentioned name in paragraphs like, "some policy people argue X; others argue Y; others still argue Z." And of course, most of those paragraphs are written in papers that will say all of that is wrong, and that the best approach is W.
I can't really say exactly why the policy community is that way, but I suspect it's because the incentives are too skewed to avoid. Your NGO doesn't get funding by saying, "we're going to do the same thing as that other group, because it works." It gets funding by saying, "what that other group is doing is pretty good, but what we're going to do is even better." And when the law or policy community behaves this way, it will create hypocrisies as stances on different issues are inconsistent with each other. But why change your views when you -- and others, either in collaboration or separately -- can just a write a paper "harmonizing the different perspectives"? It used to frustrate me listening to people talk about their theories as if they were like general relativity and quantum mechanics -- two valid ways of looking at the world that happen to be inconsistent and it's bullshit. No, you aren't seeking a grand unified theory of anything. You're just simply refusing to acknowledge that the equation used in line 2 of your derivation is actually wrong.
We -- i.e. the more educated class -- view ourselves as having some positive relationship with truth. Maybe we actively pursue truth in our lives through study and knowledge; or we acknowledge truth in practice; and we like our morality to be based in truth, because it feels more like morality that way. On this account, hypocrisy is a sign of weakness. There's no better way to refute an argument by a Dunning-Kruger type saying X than to show them saying not X at some other time.
To MAGA, hypocrisy is a feature. They see it as a privilege. They see it as something that rich and powerful people get to do, and thus they want that power. And of course, there is plenty of hypocrisy there. But to MAGA, minimizing hypocrisy is just for losers. To be powerful is to impose rules or requirements on others that you don't have to follow yourself.
Now, there are a couple of follow-ups, right? What a simpleton might see as hypocrisy is often a difference in context. The hypocrisy is explained away by subtlety. MAGA views subtlety as a trick. This is related to their aversion to study or knowledge. So when we say, "military intervention in Iraq is bad," they say, "well, Clinton intervened with military assistance in Kosovo, you're just being hypocritical." That the Kosovo intervention was a) wasn't and was never intended to be an occupation; that b) it was a clear case of self-defense for the Kosovars that we were helping with; c) that there were ongoing slaughters and had been for half a decade at least; d) it was not based on lies; and e) it was conducted by NATO under the US lead -- none of that matters to MAGA. It requires too much thought. They prefer to throw mud.
Second, everybody is a little bit hypocritical at times, no matter how we try to avoid it. That's because human cognition is imperfect. Sometimes hypocrisy isn't about bad faith; it's about not fully understanding the issue being discussed. Which is why, in educated circles, we point out hypocrisies and expect truth-seekers to minimize them, while taking that same criticism and adjusting our views in reciprocation.
Well, that's what happens in educated circles in theory. The reality is that nobody rises to prominence by admitting that their work was incorrect. Changing your views in response to criticism is not a way to get published or get tenure. That's what I learned in the policy world when I was thinking about going into it. Policy people just aren't always that concerned about results; they are more interested in being a mentioned name in paragraphs like, "some policy people argue X; others argue Y; others still argue Z." And of course, most of those paragraphs are written in papers that will say all of that is wrong, and that the best approach is W.
I can't really say exactly why the policy community is that way, but I suspect it's because the incentives are too skewed to avoid. Your NGO doesn't get funding by saying, "we're going to do the same thing as that other group, because it works." It gets funding by saying, "what that other group is doing is pretty good, but what we're going to do is even better." And when the law or policy community behaves this way, it will create hypocrisies as stances on different issues are inconsistent with each other. But why change your views when you -- and others, either in collaboration or separately -- can just a write a paper "harmonizing the different perspectives"? It used to frustrate me listening to people talk about their theories as if they were like general relativity and quantum mechanics -- two valid ways of looking at the world that happen to be inconsistent and it's bullshit. No, you aren't seeking a grand unified theory of anything. You're just simply refusing to acknowledge that the equation used in line 2 of your derivation is actually wrong.
