Another Try At Understanding Definitions: "Hypocrite"

Well, we’re talking about Bill Bennett here, so let’s talk about him. Of course he’s a hypocrite because he not only talks about personal responsibility and the dangers of indulging in an assortment of vices in such a permissive society, but also uses the argument that these reflect larger personal failings and this type of moral laxity has direct, detrimental impacts on the culture and society as a whole. Marijuana. Gay relationships (let along marriage). Divorce, cohabitation and single parenthood. All are vilified and seen as signs of a slippery slope toward America’s downfall.

But look out! It turns out another activity that most anyone would consider a “vice” (losing milliions of dollars in gambling) doesn’t count! This is an activity that’s illegal in many places, has a proven association with addictive behavior, and has unambiguous ties with crime in various circles, but somehow, all the reasons and rationales behind his other crusades don’t apply here. This is called “convenient”.

This is like someone railing against adultery who’s caught licking out a woman who’s not his wife. His defense: “Eating isn’t cheating”, and because he didn’t specify the parameters of what consituted “adultery”, he absolves himself of any accusation of hypocrisy.

This is, naturally, bullshit.

This type of situational morality, especially when it flies in the face of what most people associate with certain terms or code words, is hypocritical in spirit if not by the letter. This is especially true if his audience consists of people who are most likely to hold the same interpretations of these terms and code words. I can claim that all vegetables are evil, but when you find me eating green beans, assert, “Oh, well that’s a legume!” It may be something I can rationalize all day about, but it’s not going to convince anyone with two brain cells. It’s disingenuous and best and dishonest at worst. So while people are very happy to let Bennett slide on this type of technicality, it’s self-serving (or perhaps empty-headed) sophistry.

From Slate:

From The Nation:

From The National Review:

Yes, all of those are vilified. But not gambling.

It wasn’t illegal where he did it, and the point of this thread is to pointout that it’s quite irrelevant what “most anyone else considers” a vice is not remotely relevant.

There is some similarilty, yes. The problem is that if he does in fact sincreely believe that eating out isn’t cheating, then, as Snowboarder Bo so cogently put it, “We would think he was delusional, a liar to himself, and a reprehensible human being, and we would call him a hypocrite, but he himself might not until he acknowledged the cognitive dissonance going on in his own head.”

In the specific case of gambling, I don’t even accept this idea you have that it’s universally considered a vice. There may well be some narrow Christian sects that so believe, but the most numerous Christian demonomination in the United States, Catholicism (Bennett’s own religion!!) does not condemn gambling as a sin.

So even if I were to accept that these “code words” mean something, and that by uttering them, the speaker is signing on to a whole list of unamiguous assertions, I don’t agree that gambling would be on that list.
And for the record, I reject the “code words” business anyway. “Pro-life” tells us nothing about the speaker’s stance on the death penalty, and I’ve heard people say they’re pro-life even though they favor abortion rights (the apparent rationale being that they are in favor of the mother’s quality of life).

Sorry. The “code words” exception to the hypocrite rule is useless.

And not one of your cites can point to Bennett decrying gambling. Not one.

Is it correct to call the priest a hypocrite, yes or no?

Sheesh, didn’t we do that years ago?

Bricker is quite correct on this point; someone who does not oppose gambling (even though he opposes all other victimless social “crimes”) is not a hypocrite because he gambles. (However, Bricker is, for the U.S. at least, in denial that gambling has not historically been considered a vice. The vast spread and acceptance of legal gambling has taken place in my lifetime.)

Hi.

My very old dictionary defines a hypocrite as someone who pretends to a religiosity or virtuousness that s/he does not in fact possess, and lists “dissembler” and “pretender” as synonyms, which would bag lots of people the posters in this thread (most of them, anyhow) would seem to let off the hook.

My newest dictionary defines hypocrite as someone who pretends to any virtues or qualities s/he does not have (which would include anyone who lies on their resume), an even broader category, and so, maybe, less useful.

I’m a lousy etymologist, but hypo is Greek for “below,” “under,” or “inferior,” and crisis Greek for for “decision” or “judgment,” and that makes me think maybe hypocrisy is the flip side of misjudging people.

I can’t find Bricker’s definition, quite, in any dictionary within reach, but his seems to strike a chord with everyone and if I combine that with my own half-assed reasoning I conclude that a hypocrite is someone who pretends to a virtuousness or morality or any admirable quality that s/he does not possess, by publicly condemning others for lacking it.

How’s that?

I’m still waiting to know if the priest is a hypocrite.

The real problem here is that a few weeks ago Bricker slipped up and said, “It is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford the proper treatment.” The edit option expired before he could add 5 pages of lawerly fine print.

So we have, on record, an expressed belief. For him to not be a hypocrite, his actions need to remain consistent with that expressed belief.

Meaning, that if shit hits the fan, he will consider it acceptable for his family to die, because they could not afford proper treatment.

I get the feeling Bricker knows this, and knows that he wouldn’t find that acceptable. So started an entire thread to make sure he has wiggle room when he needs it.

So fine, have your wiggle room, take all the wiggle room you need to back paddle without risk of falling.

I’m relieved to know I can never be called a hypocrite.

Ha. Ha ha ha.

It may interest you to know that I said this about Bill Bennett and the charge of hypocriscy:

I also said:

And in a remarkably prescient trick, I knew that I would need this defense because I’d make a mistake before the edit window expired, so I cleverly laid this defense ahead of time.

In 2003. Seven years ago.

Is that planning, or what?

In the thread that inspired this one, I linked to the on-line dictionary I was using.

Cripes amighty, Bricker. It’s been five years and you’re still seething about the beat-down you took in the Bill Bennett thread?

Pretty simple stuff. Bennett wrote “The Book of Virtues” and thereby set himself up as an arbiter of morals. Then it turns out that he blew millions gambling in Vegas. This represents a virtue in practically no one’s book, and goes against the teachings of his church which promotes wise stewardship of one’s money. Thus he is legitimately labeled a hypocrite (note that after he and his wife announced that he was quitting gambling, he later issued a statement clarifying that that only applied to excessive gambling).

The accusations of hypocrisy pissed off Bricker, because it was a Republican getting hosed, and because Bricker himself is fond of gambling. So the thread features multiple pages of Bricker denial and weaseling which only manage to piss off others as well.

Whether or not others on the Dope since then have misused the word “hypocrite”, Bennett remains one.

First, is the priest a hypocrite?

As for the rest of your post, I don’t get it. Are you saying you aren’t a hypocrite because your wife made the comment about health care? Or you aren’t a hypocrite because you DIDN’T say, "It is acceptable for me and my family to die because we can’t afford proper treatment.

You made a statement of expressed belief. As a result, there are handful of actions that would make you a hypocrite.

I can understand your frustration with this word, because it is tossed around so callously on this board. We get a lot of people making weird statements about the future like, “oh ya, if you believe government shouldn’t be involved you shouldn’t use roads.” It’s a lazy argument and gets used too often.

But when a person pretends to have virtues, principles , moral or religious beliefs, he should be expected to follow through with that. We get a lot of people up on soap boxes acting as if they’re better then some other group. Comments like, “Government hand outs are wrong (moral stance). They are for lazy people who are irresponsible. I am responsible and will not need them (pretends to be virtuous).” Well, what sort of actions would make that person a hypocrite? Perhaps taking government hand outs?

My college roommate was extremely pro-life. We had a debate about abortion that lasted three years. He was insistent that abortion was morally and legally wrong, and eventually convinced me of that fact. As the debate was winding down, having acknowledged defeat, I said, “I don’t really believe you, I think that when faced with the real life situation, you won’t hesitate.”

Well, turns out that during those three years, he was still a virgin. And, when a condom eventually slipped, he didn’t skip a beat driving that girl to the doctor. Now we are both pro choice.

I’m sure a crafty lawyer could spin that so that he isn’t a hypocrite, which is what I think this thread boils down to.

Your definition of hypocrite has “moral stance (expressed belief)” followed by “contrary action.”

But the point remains that there are very few people who are able to base their moral beliefs on their actions, be it the actions of the past, or their most likely actions in the future. I am pro choice, not because I think it’s the woman’s right, and not because I think it’s okay to kill babies. I’m pro choice because I’m honest enough with myself to know that when the situation arises I won’t hesitate to suck that little fucker out of there.

I want social safety nets, not because I love poor people, not because I’m irresponsible, not because I’m lazy and expect other people to provide for me, but because I know that if things go wrong I wouldn’t hesitate to make use of them.

And I want a system of judicial leniency, not because I’m soft on crime, but because I know that if I ended up in court I wouldn’t hesitate to fall on my knees and beg.

So when I see people on an internet message board talking tough, and taking a virtuous and moral stance I know they won’t live up to, I will no longer call them a hypocrite, but I’m still going to call them on their bullshit.

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Hey, I think I get it. Allow me to illustrate:

Priest A: “Having sexual relations with little boys is wrong.” Gets cause having sexual relations with little boys, but isn’t a hypocrite.

Priest B: “Having sexual relations with little boys is morally wrong, I am a person of superior moral character.” Gets cause having sexual relations with little boys, but IS hypocrite because he professed to have superior morals.

Is that correct?

Did’t you hear?

In point of fact, I planned the entire Bennett thread to cover my ass on this issue. :rolleyes:

As to the Book of Virtues, I notice you tried in vain to find one page of that book that condemned gambling. It doesn’t. So we’re left with the same lame attempts as mentioned above: generalized comments about “virtue” and statements about what his church teaches are somehow ascribed personally to his gambling and, presto changeo, he’s called a hypocrite. But that’s not what the word means.

Hey, guess what? I am a Roman Catholic, and I support gay marriage. Am I a hypocrite? No. Because I personally don’t condemn gay marriage. And I am not called upon to believe every thing my church teaches. (There are a set of core beliefs I must hold to call myself a Catholic, but whether the secular law should permit same-sex marriage is notamong those).

If you have to reach into inference and supposition to find the supposed contradiction between expressed belief and behavior, you can’t say “hypocrite,” because that is not what the word means.

No. It’s safe to say this concept continues to elude you.

That’s fine. “Bullshit,” is a wide-ranging term. My only objection here is the specific meaning of “hypocrite” and its (mis)use. You want to cal people on bullshit, you go right on.

Show me a parent and I’ll show you a hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do.

I just dropped off a sweet 89 year old lady to play Bingo. She is going to gamble with some other of her peers. She is a very religious woman that loves to play cards and go to Bingo. Is she a hypocrite?

Was I a hypocrite telling my children not to drink or do drugs when I did?

So we can all agree that Bricker has no idea about what Hypocrite means, right?

Nah, you just abruptly decided five years later to re-educate Dopers on the meaning of the word “hypocrite”. :smiley:

I don’t recall paging through the book to find if Bennett covered every possible moral failing. It wasn’t necessary in order to label Mr. Virtue a hypocrite.

On the other hand, if one wrote a book called “The Roman Catholic Book Of Virtues” and preened on one’s moral uprightness without mentioning having procured an abortion, that would be hypocrisy even if one didn’t specifically lambaste abortion in the book.

It must be nice to think you can pick and choose what sins are sins and virtues are virtues (in opposition to widely held views on the subject) and that hypocrisy can be re-defined according to whim, but it’s as untenable and weaselly now as it was five years ago.

Bricker, what would you say about this situation?

A man who is anti-UHC because “it is socialism and no one should be forced to pay for someone’s else healthcare” suddenly loses their job and subsequently their family’s health insurance policy. A few months later, he finds out that his spouse–the mother of his three kids–has breast cancer and needs a double mastectomy and chemo. They have a grand total of $1000 bucks in the bank, not enough to cover hardly anything. Loans are out of their reach because of poor credit, and they rent so that can’t even mortgage a house.

Their solution is to seek care in Canada.

Now here’s the thing: we could debate all the live-long day whether they would be hypocrites for doing this. But we’d be missing the larger point: What are the ethical/moral implications of sticking by anti-socialist principles given all there is at stake in a situation like this one? Months of suffering, watching your spouse slowly die, having your kids lose their mother, possibly going broke in the process of doing what little you can do to save her. Would it be more noble to accept all these consequences rather than be a hypocrite? I don’t think any rational person would think so.

That’s where it comes down for me. If the opposite of being a hypocrite means sitting back and watching a loved one suffer or die, bankrupting your family or turning them into a sphagetti dinner charity case, then it is far better to be a hypocrite in this situation. I think if most anti-UHCers were in this situation, they would make the hypocritical choice and accept any aid they could get, “socialist” or otherwise. Which means the only difference between them and those who are pro-UHC is that the latter doesn’t need a health crisis to happen in their family to see the value in UHC. The former, for some sad reason, does.

“Daddy, I want to play Candyland.”
“Sweetie, how about we play Chess instead. It’s a better game than Candyland.”
“But Daddy, Candyland has rainbows and princesses, and that makes it a better game, and my sister and I want to play it.”
“OK, Honey, even though I think Chess is a better game, I’ll play Candyland with you.”
“Haw, Haw! Daddy’s a hypocrite! Daddy said he doesn’t like Candyland, yet he plays it anyway! Hypocrite! Hypocrite! Hypocrite!”

I humbly suggest that in this scenario my daughter keeps using a word that does not mean what she thinks it means.

Bricker is probably also steamed up about the country song “Harper Valley P.T.A.”.

As you recall, Mrs. Harper confronted the P.T.A. after getting a letter warning her about wearing short skirts, drinkin’ and runnin’ around with men, thus serving as a bad example to her young daughter.

Mrs. H. takes PTA members to task for 1) asking her for a date, 2) drinking (although her evidence is feeble and does not indicate problem drinking), 3) insinuates an illicit relationship with a secretary, and 4) exhibitionism.

None of these alleged activities relates to wearing short skirts or running around with men. The drinking charge, as we have seen, is weak. And none of the P.T.A. members are accused of serving as bad examples to their daughters, if they even have any female offspring. Yet Mrs. Harper triumphantly labels her opponents “Harper Valley hypocrites”.

Clearly Mrs. Harper is ill-informed about the meaning of the word “hypocrite”. :dubious:

Let’s get Jeannie C. Riley, Dolly Parton, Tom T. Hall and the others who’ve recorded the song in here, to apologize for perpetuating this improper use of the language.