The example of hypocrisy using a a male kissing a female without permission vs a female kissing a male without permission is interesting since we should treat men and women differently in certain contexts. But those contexts should be explicit and agreed upon.
That was not my experience of bullying. I was in public schools in a mill city and people beat the crap out each other, one sometimes getting sent to the hospital while the other went to Juvie.
BTW, I am 70 years old and in New Hampshire, one of the three states that has had the lowest rates of violent crime since the colonial era. Do not rely on memory for such evaluations of how things were, as it is too easy to fit the data to a preferred narrative.
This is a great article. Quite honestly, I do not see the point in playing along, arguing, and engaging with a culture that has normalized this kind of behavior. Those who participate have no interest in truth or Good and cannot be dealt with intellectually. It's the kind of thing that warrants violence to be quite honest and that is genuinely the only way that a state of decency is and has ever been maintained -- by very real threat of violence.
So the question isn't "how do we reign them in" or "how do we make them see our point of view?" The question is where is the violence? (other than directed at us)
What's interesting is that supposed moral condemnations of violence along with claims that it's "never the answer" are, in fact, hypocrisy. They're bullying. They're social means by which those who would have put the out of line in their place are constrained. The corporate and government surveilled internet, with its isolating and apparently brain eating echo chamber effect, goes even further in making would be heros feel utterly unsupported.
But, particularly brazen bullies must be fought with fire and if they aren't... our lifetimes are fucked.
What I think this analysis is missing is that hypocrisy once had a similar social function to declaring someone a criminal during war. The idea was, 'there is an acceptable way for parties to fight, but the hypocrite has fallen outside it, in doing so he has forfeited all the normal protections of social niceties, and may be treated as a rabid dog. Furthermore, if you want these protections to remain, you should try to exclude him, despite being my enemy. It doesn't even cost you anything anyway, because the hypocrite after-all is a weak, cowardly and unreliable creature incapable of actual beliefs; so why would you sacrifice your reputation to defend him?"
The reason why hypocrisy no longer carries any serious stigma, is the shared background understanding that the official norms don't actually exist. No one thought Harvard was protecting Gay because it admired her scholarship. Both sides understood full well, even though they couldn't state it, that Gay's protection came from being black. Conservatives of course do the same thing all the time, selecting comically inept candidates because they are of a minority background.
Since all parties have agreed to new rules, calling out the lies they've both agreed to tell about the old ones is hardly going to be effective.
GM, i think prof. Kurzban nailed the point yet: Morality is a side-taking evolutionary strategy. Morality is a better solution to sort out which side to take, so moral hypocrites are social free-riders, because they use morality to further their interest. Wokeism is more prone to this for intersectionality, that creates more layers of morality through which hypocrite can hide from retaillations: e.g. muslims and trans are obviously hypocrite against jew and TERF, but their additional moral layer shields them.
The example of hypocrisy using a a male kissing a female without permission vs a female kissing a male without permission is interesting since we should treat men and women differently in certain contexts. But those contexts should be explicit and agreed upon.
"were silent in the face of the documented sexual violence in Hamas’ terrorist attack on civilians. "
It was documented sure, by liars, certainly.
https://x.com/paulbiggar/status/1763253503755981055?s=20
That was not my experience of bullying. I was in public schools in a mill city and people beat the crap out each other, one sometimes getting sent to the hospital while the other went to Juvie.
BTW, I am 70 years old and in New Hampshire, one of the three states that has had the lowest rates of violent crime since the colonial era. Do not rely on memory for such evaluations of how things were, as it is too easy to fit the data to a preferred narrative.
This is a great article. Quite honestly, I do not see the point in playing along, arguing, and engaging with a culture that has normalized this kind of behavior. Those who participate have no interest in truth or Good and cannot be dealt with intellectually. It's the kind of thing that warrants violence to be quite honest and that is genuinely the only way that a state of decency is and has ever been maintained -- by very real threat of violence.
So the question isn't "how do we reign them in" or "how do we make them see our point of view?" The question is where is the violence? (other than directed at us)
What's interesting is that supposed moral condemnations of violence along with claims that it's "never the answer" are, in fact, hypocrisy. They're bullying. They're social means by which those who would have put the out of line in their place are constrained. The corporate and government surveilled internet, with its isolating and apparently brain eating echo chamber effect, goes even further in making would be heros feel utterly unsupported.
But, particularly brazen bullies must be fought with fire and if they aren't... our lifetimes are fucked.
Hypocrisy was (but isn't) a demand for total war:
What I think this analysis is missing is that hypocrisy once had a similar social function to declaring someone a criminal during war. The idea was, 'there is an acceptable way for parties to fight, but the hypocrite has fallen outside it, in doing so he has forfeited all the normal protections of social niceties, and may be treated as a rabid dog. Furthermore, if you want these protections to remain, you should try to exclude him, despite being my enemy. It doesn't even cost you anything anyway, because the hypocrite after-all is a weak, cowardly and unreliable creature incapable of actual beliefs; so why would you sacrifice your reputation to defend him?"
The reason why hypocrisy no longer carries any serious stigma, is the shared background understanding that the official norms don't actually exist. No one thought Harvard was protecting Gay because it admired her scholarship. Both sides understood full well, even though they couldn't state it, that Gay's protection came from being black. Conservatives of course do the same thing all the time, selecting comically inept candidates because they are of a minority background.
Since all parties have agreed to new rules, calling out the lies they've both agreed to tell about the old ones is hardly going to be effective.
GM, i think prof. Kurzban nailed the point yet: Morality is a side-taking evolutionary strategy. Morality is a better solution to sort out which side to take, so moral hypocrites are social free-riders, because they use morality to further their interest. Wokeism is more prone to this for intersectionality, that creates more layers of morality through which hypocrite can hide from retaillations: e.g. muslims and trans are obviously hypocrite against jew and TERF, but their additional moral layer shields them.