I absolutely didn’t intend for it to be exculpatory; the logic they appear to actually be operating under is at least as awful, quite possibly worse, as that they claim to be operating under; and the fact that they are lying about the rules they actually care about is at least as bad as being sometimes hypocritical in their observance.
My interest in the distinction is there’s some pretty extreme variation in whether a violation of the professed rules is treated as dire or just winked at; and that variation appears to follow it’s own (ugly and unethical) logic of power and prerogative. Just taking them at their word about their standards and pointing out that they are bad at following them isn’t false; but it doesn’t get to why they do, or don’t, respond to particular violations.
That’s the heart of conservatives as we currently know them. Hurting people because they can and glorying in the suffering. Sadly, it seems every group, LGBTQ, Black, women, immigrant, whatever, has those among them where this is their jam. Leopards eating faces applies, but does not seem to register with them in the face of inflicting harm upon others without consequences.
First it’s “don’t talk about that stuff in front of the kids,” then it’s “Those People shouldn’t work with children” (we may remember that one from the 1970s, last time this was a trendy talking point), then it’s no public displays of affection because a kid might see it, Those People not allowed to live too close to a school, ultimately Those People not allowed to exist at all, just to protect the kids
Years ago I actually knew a guy like this well enough to ask him point blank why he was so passionate about awful things and he told me that he kind of likes hating himself. He wanted to be hated and to hate himself. He went on to commit tax fraud but was given leniency because of age, disability, and mental illness.
I lost touch prior to that because I deeply disliked the guy, but it always stayed with me.
I truly believe “Conservatism” has become some kind of full blown sickness.
To them, laws and rules are a hammer to hit those other people with. The idea that they should be applied equally, especially to themselves is probably crazy talk to them.
the almost does a heck of a lot of work though. we live in a society which uniquely privileges white, cis, straight men, with a power structure that supports a regressive form of christianity
people who want to maximize their power over other people therefore have a ready made structure to abuse
or, more to the point: in every group of people there are always going to be “lying grifters, crooks, and sex pests” - but there’s one particular group who likes to raise those sorts up as heroes
it’s not some random group and some random set of allegations. it’s the set we can expect to see again and again until we change who has power
Is there a chance that she’s self-sabotaging? And that she’s doing it both ways? First she’s destroying the chance of having a meaningful relationship with another woman by creating a public profile as a homophobe, then she’s tempting fate the other way by filming herself during the action.
This is true, and from an outside perspective clearly hypocrisy - but from their perspective, it isn’t, which makes the dynamics of the whole thing a bit nastier.
I was reading some analysis from someone who submerged themselves in white evangelical culture (Charlotte Clymer, maybe?), who talked about how within that culture, anything done with the confines of heterosexual marriage was considered fine. Specifically they were discussing cross-dressing: as part of hetero, married sexplay, this was cool, outside of that very much not cool. So on one level, there’s the hypocrisy, but there’s also some important projection going on - drag in their minds is a sexual fetish and thus to be kept behind closed doors. There’s no such thing as innocent drag for them. Likewise, if a man wants his wife to have sex with another woman, that’s justified within this patriarchal structure and fine for them (they’re both still “heterosexual” because his wife is ostensibly doing it to please her husband), but presumably they’re still condemning their sex partner, who is outside that patriarchal structure (and which presumably makes it easier for them to justify abusing her). So we’ve got the horrors of this patriarchal structure in which women don’t have sexual agency, the hypocrisy and double standards, but also the evangelical mindset in which being gay isn’t a sexual identity but a fetish which isn’t appropriate for public discussion, much less children being aware of it. Even if they’re into this stuff, they can’t see the hypocrisy because they see the situations as being completely different in key respects even as they project, and both the similarities and differences make them even more angry about it.
The good faith is yours, not theirs. When you call someone a hypocrite you take on good faith the existence of whatever virtues or qualities they might be hypocritical about. But they never existed.
There’s also a “fetish” that puts authoritative leaders beyond bounds of normal morality. So there’s forgiveness for the “Stars” at the top of the hierarchy who can be caught on tape bragging about not only commiting adultery but also sexual assault, as well as incentive for power at the top, so they can rise to the level where there are no consequences.
Sure. So, what’s taken in good faith is that whatever’s being “preached” is meaningful enough to make their failure to “practice” it remarkable. I just think it’s meaningless and unremarkable, and that it’s more relevant to point out that they’re liars, crooks and alleged rapists.
The “hypocrisy” fixation in these scandals is like pointing out that a con-man selling hair growth snake-oil is wearing a hairpiece. It’s funny but also a frame of reference suited to con-artists with real hair.
i have fallen into the trap of calling them hypocrites
and i think yours is a good reminder to call out that their public actions are harmful, rather than the fact their behavior in public is different than their behavior in private.
to a certain extent, talking about those differences in behavior winds up being a distraction from the fact that what they are doing in public is wrong
I can see that, honestly. Calling someone a hypocrite for preaching against gay sex but still having it kind of, in a way, justifies the view that gay sex is the bad behavior here.
Obviously the gay sex isn’t really the problem; they’d be bigots with or without the hypocrisy angle.
However these bigots clearly think that the hypocrisy will cost them credibility within their movement or they wouldn’t bother keeping it a secret in the first place. Same deal with anti-miscegenation crusader Strom Thurmond fathering a child with the underage daughter of his Black housekeeper. So I don’t have a problem letting their bigoted friends and followers see who they really are.
Of course, just as with Strom Thurmond the most evil part is that they engaged in sexual assault with people who did not or could not provide consent.
Exactly. They pretend they care about or value this thing that other people (I think?) do legitimately care about or value. For their own gains.
Obviously it’s not the main problem, but the hypocrisy is legitimately shitty. It’s a con job. And they hurt and villainize “others” in the process.
