SDMB hypocrisy/double standards... does everyone do it?

Great Debates
1

One of the biggest problems the SDMB has, imho, and something that has become something of a pet issue of mine, is the issue of hypocrisy. Not the problem that there ARE hypocrites, but the problem that so many threads devolve into tedious back and forths about “but when Bush did xxx” and “but when Clinton did xxx” and “but when Michael Moore did xxx”, etc. I’ve ranted about it at great length, most notably here.

More recently, I had an exchange with Bricker starting here, which went like this:

Me: “If you’re trying to get me to admit that liberals are more likely to support someone who holds liberal viewpoints than conservative viewpoints, well, ya got me. In fact, I’m so willing to admit that that I’ve started at least two pit threads saying precisely that. Is it because all liberals are big dumb hypocrites? Not really. It’s because liberals are people. People like people they agree with. People don’t like people they disagree with. It’s called being human. Everyone does it.”
Bricker: “I don’t. At least, I try mightily not to, and if called on it, I’ll make every effort to undo it. But before posting (or speaking) a condemnation of anyone, I will always ask myself how I’d feel if the roles or the situation was reversed.”

I mentioned in that thread that I intended to explore the issue at greater length when I had time. Which I now do!
So… IS everyone a hypocrite?

Well, first of all, let’s make clear what we’re discussing. In almost all these cases, what we’re discussing is something that I think is more accurately called “having a double standard”. After all, it’s in no way necessarily hypocritical to have a massive SDMB double standard. If your belief system is “party X is so much better and more right about so many issues than party y that it would clearly benefit the US for party x to be in power, so I should do everything I can to talk up party x”, then it is perfectly consistent with your beliefs, and thus NOT hypocritical, for you to downplay party x’s scandals and rant about party y’s scandals. And it’s quite possible to do so without ever being dishonest at all. (And heck, even BEING dishonest isn’t necessarily hypocritical, although it’s certainly something that is worth criticizing in its own right.)

So, what we’re really talking about is double standards. People or groups who react one way when someone on “their side” does something, and react another way when somone on the other side does a similar thing.

I claim that this is (a) universal, or nearly universal, and (b) except in extreme cases, really really not a big deal (at least in the context of the SDMB).
So, why do I claim it is so common? Well, for two basic reasons. First of all, a good percentage of the double standards that are being complained about are not of the “this happened, you said x… this happened, you said y” variety, but of the “this happened, you said x… this happened, you were strangely silent”. People seem to put a lot of stock in what other people do or do not post on the SDMB about. BUT, that’s really a meaningless metric. We all post on the SDMB for fun. No one is paying us. It’s not our job. We didn’t sign contracts saying we were under some obligation to try to be fair and just in our online musings, or in what we choose to devote our attention to. So we post basically where we want to post. And it’s just plain more fun and satisfying to see something that outrages you and start from a position of “those people are bastards!” then to see something that saddens you and start from a position of “I’m sad that someone I support did something wrong”.

(Speaking purely for myself, if there’s a thread about a democrat doing something bad, and it’s not someone who I feel particularly close to or responsible for, nor is it an issue that I have a particular interest in, I usually just don’t say much in that thread. What would I say? “Yes, he did someone bad, and this liberal thinks so”? What a dull life I would lead if I felt obligated to pipe up with that all the time. Of course, that vast majority of threads in which a republican did something wrong I also don’t post in, because the vast majority of threads overall I don’t post in. But the ratio is probably a bit higher for threads about republican wrongdoing. So if you did some massive objective numerical expert-system analysis of my posts, you might well find my reactions to scandals having some correlation with my political leanings.)

The other basic reason is that it’s just plain human nature to want to look on the bright, forgiving side when it comes to people you like and agree with. Remember, very few of these issues are 100% cut and dried. It’s not like a democratic senator is caught on video molesting children, and then a republican senator is caught on video molesting precisely the same children, and we’re all like “oh, that poor democratic senator, it’s because of his sad childhood, let’s be understanding and give him a second chance” and “that republican senator must be executed live on the Rachel Maddow Show!”. Rather, there are subtle and complicated issues where Obama did something due to issues x and y resulting in z and w, where Bush had don something due to issues a and b resulting in c and d. And sure, there are some similarities, but really both issues are vague and have reasonably valid arguments to be made on all sides… and it just borders on human impossibility for the fact that I really like Obama and really hated Bush (and freely admit that) not to at least slightly influence how I might initially react to those two situations. I’m not saying that NO human can do it, but I think that people like Bricker can quite honestly claim and mean that they judge all situations impartially, and certainly do their best (quite possibly better than me), but situations are far too complicated and multifaceted, and the human brain is far too complicated with its feedback loops of emotions and thoughts and whatnot, for me to believe that they achieve that goal to perfection.
So, I claim that all SDMB posters have double standards. So we’re all terrible douchebags, right?

Well, no. Because the other point I want to make is that having minor online double standards in your posting patterns is just not. A. Big. Deal.

How so?

First of all, actions matter far more than words. If someone is a lawyer and does a better job of defending republican defendants than democratic defendents, that matters a LOT. If someone is a member of the house ethics committee and pursues ethics charges against democrats but not against republicans, that matter a LOT. But that describes none of us (I hope… we do certainly have some lawyers here).

Secondly, to the extent that words matter, they matter based on the influence they have. So while I hope you never catch me randomly accusing SDMB posters of double standards (as that, given this thread, clearly WOULD be hypocrisy), you might catch me ranting about double standards on Fox News. Because Fox News is something that millions of people watch and take seriously,and which presents itself as a source of fair and balanced information. So if Fox News spends hours ranting about a democratic scandal while ignoring an equivalent republican scandal, that DOES matter.

And thirdly, so what if someone has a double standard in their posts? Does that really change any debate they are involved in? If I’m debating someone about gay marriage, and I some discover and prove with absolute metaphysical certitude that that person has a double standard in their posting patterns, well, so what? Does that mean I won the gay marriage debate? Not in the slightest. Some SDMB posters have double standards. Some are jerks. Some have short tempers. Some have no tact. None of those are GOOD things, but they’re also not things that automatically invalidate any argument they are making, or automatically win a debate with them if that fact is pointed out.
So, am I saying that it’s just peachy keen to have a double standard in your posting? Not at all… but it’s a matter of degree, not of absolutes. Not to name names, but there are some posters who take it to a ridiculous extreme. And that’s bad. But not so much because it’s dishonest or hypocritical, but because it usually goes along with seeing the world through such partisan blinders that they are also fiercely and preposterously stubborn and singleminded. I wouldn’t mind at all if someone’s initial reaction to most stories was to point out how, if a democrat did it, it wasn’t so bad because X, and if a republican did it, it was really terrible because Y, IF they were honestly and rationally debating those points, and listening and responding. But that’s usually not the case. And, ironically, the people who are, imho, the most partisan and have the strongest double standards themselves, seem to be the ones most eager to cry foul and try to turn any thread into a “lol-ur-a-hypocrite”-fest.

2

Tribalism and confirmation bias are terrible things for rational thinking. Unfortunately they’re pretty good for persuading people. Considering that human reasoning evolved to convince people and gain status, not seek truth, this state of affairs is unlikely to change.

3

Certainly there are very few of us who are not more willing to believe the worst of someone we already dislike or disagree with and more willing to see possibly “bad” actions with a benefit of the doubt if they are done by someone we like and/or agree with. Some of that is even rational: if I have reason to already to believe that someone is a crook and he is found in a circumstance that appears as if he’s been stealing, then that track record will inform me; if I know someone is honest, I’ve good reason to believe that, and they are found in the same circumstance, then I will likely give him some benefit of the doubt. And assuming that my reasons for having my extant impression were based on some reality, those actions would be more likely to guide me to correct conclusions than not considering past experiences would. One bad act also may not be enough to tarnish my opinion of someone who I otherwise have admired and one noble deed may not be enough to offset my disgust at someone who I otherwise think is reprehensible. I would not call any of that hypocrisy.

The issue comes in when it goes beyond informing the conclusion and giving some additional benefit of the doubt, and into stubborn refusal to consider the facts.

One thing I would say is that someone who holds members of their own political “side” to the same standards that they hold members of “the other team” has earned my respect and that informs me when I deal with them in the future.

4

Interesting topic. Interesting OP. I just want to mention one aspect of my own hypocrisy or lack thereof.

I react to the perceived motives of political actors. For example, I genuinely admired Oliver North and accepted the Iran-Contra-scam because I thought these players were attempting to serve America’s interests, even if, IMO, they perceived those interests incorrectly.

By the same token, Congressman motivated by personal greed disgust me, even if they vote on “my side of the aisle.”

This may help explain why I admire Michael Moore and detest Beck-Limbaugh, yet do not consider that I have a double standard. Moore is sincerely trying to improve America, and getting rich as an incidental deserved reward. Beck and Limbaugh, OTOH, produce lies for only one purpose: their own enrichment.

5

This isn’t hypocrisy, it’s confirmation bias. There is no objective standard by which you can show that Moore’s motivations are more pure than Limbaugh’s.

Add to that the fact that Moore produces movies and LImbaugh is on the radio three hours a day five days a week, and therefore there is a lot more material to pick thru to try to find things to condemn, and you have an excellent opportunity to play gotcha with Limbaugh that doesn’t exist with Moore. Add to that the huge vested interest that partisans have in directing the attention of whoever they can only and solely to misdeeds from those they dislike, and attempting to pretend that their side is as pure as the driven snow, and you get a badly distorted view of things.

Don’t believe me? Count the number of times Maxine Waters’ and Charles Rangel’s ethical problems are mentioned hereabouts. Compare that with, say, Tom Delay.

I disagree. Double standards are always a big deal. People should strive to be as fair-minded as you describe Bricker to be.

Liberals are overwhelmingly predominant on the SDMB. Therefore the overwhelming majority of instances of double standards are going to be the IOKIADDI sort. Saying “both sides do it just as much” is meaningless on the SDMB - one side isn’t there to do it as much, and nearly all the screaming occurs when someone points this out.

Regards,
Shodan

6

Double standards may be natural, but they are inherently troublesome. I think they are a big deal, but that we all too often hyper-focus on them and thus lose sight of the issue itself. In fact, that is a dope-specific problem (hyper-focusing) that I’ve complained about for a long time. The problem is that you are trying to argue motivations rather than facts. When you mix that up with the actual issue it can be awfully hard to know where to fall; so many people just tout party line.

7

You’re obviously right. There are far more liberals on the SDMB, and thus, people being people, there are far more liberal-leaning double standards. In fact, nothing I posted in any way disagrees with that. In fact, it leads pretty inevitably to that conclusion.

At the same time, though, the fact that there are so many liberals on the SDMB also means that the possibility for hijacking or deflecting any thread into a discussion of those double standards is also higher. If some republican does something wrong tomorrow and a thread starts about it, odds are good that you’ll be able to find some post somewhere somewhen on the SDMB from a liberal defending some democrat who did something vaguely comparable at some point. lol, ur a hypocrite.

And that’s really my point. Once you go there, even if your’e 100 billion percent right, you’ve pretty much destroyed the original conversation. So no conversation ever really happens, because every single thread (ok, that’s slight hypocrisy) gets derailed into hypocrisy accusations. And the SDMB suffers as a result.
In other words, if you really really want to debate whether poster X is a hypocrite, I think it would be better to do it like this:

Poster X: Republicans bad! Yada yada yada!
Shodan: I believe Poster X is a hypocrite, and have started a new GD or Pit thread to discuss that topic

as opposed to this

Poster X: Republicans bad! Yada yada yada!
Shodan: Wait, but 7 years ago when Fred Democrat did something none of you guys whined about it, etc, etc, etc.

(Obviously that is just as true for all posters on all sides, not just Shodan.)
One further point on the topic of double standards in general, not specifically directed towards Shodan… a lot of the discussion that goes on on the SDMB is about things that have happened somewhat recently about which not all the details are known. Just has a double standard of actions is much worse than a double standard of words, a double standard of initial responses and speculations is much less bad than a double standard of judgments being passed once all the details are known. For instance, when Palin resigned, the SDMB left was abuzz with theories and speculations about some impending scandal that she was trying to get out of Dodge ahead of. Speculation which has since, afaik, been proven unfounded. Certainly had an equivalently prominent and popular liberal governor abruptly resigned (not that there is such a figure currently) there would not have been nearly as much speculation and gossip on the SDMB. But that’s basically just shooting the shit, and very different from a situation where Palin and Palin-of-the-left are both caught and convicted in identical scandals, in which case the reaction very clearly ought to be the same.

8

Double standards are a problem, obviously, if your aim is to provide a good argument. “Everybody does it” is not a good excuse, and it’s especially troublesome if you’re preaching to the choir (like on this board where liberals & atheists/agnostics - and I’m both - are in the majority) - since then the chances of getting called on it are reduced.

I’m certainly not blameless myself, but one of the reasons I attend this board and GD in particular is to hear opposing views and arguments that will make me more aware of my own biases and to either get rid of, or formulate better arguments for, positions that I currently might hold without good reason. Getting called on hypocrisy is a good thing. On the other hand, it’s often easier to make someone out to be a hypocrite and score rethorical points than actually addressing the argument. A hypocritical statement can still be right. The fact that the person using an argument is not applying it consistently doesn’t mean the argument is false.

9

Not me! Nope! Never!

10

But, ironically, that pretty much never happens. It’s exceedingly rare that a conversation goes like this:

Superfluous Parentheses: I think X about this issue
Someone else: But wait a second… in this post (link to an actual post from SP) 2 years ago, you said you thought Y about a nearly identical issue
SP: Wow, you’re right, I sure did. I must cogitate on this! Thanks for pointing out my hypocrisy, friendly stranger!

Instead it goes like this:

Superfluous Parentheses: I think X about this issue
Someone else: But we all know that you (insulting nickname for SP’s assumed political leanings) always think Y about similar issues, even though I will provide no specifics, no links, and no guarantee that you yourself have ever posted on such a topic in the history of the SDMB. lol ur a hypocrite
THAT is what I’m complaining about.

11

On the one hand, whether or not someone else has or has not done something just as bad, and whether or or not the poster is guilty of hypocrisy, is really immaterial to the issue at hand: is the person being accused guilty and is it bad. (Unless one believes that someone is being targeted primarily because of his/her politics while others of other political stripes are having their extant crimes systematically overlooked.) When it comes to appropriate response then comparison to others guilty of the same crime but of different political POVs is meaningful.

OTOH sometimes one side is held to a standard that other sides or other actors are not held to. And that does deserve to be pointed out and is relevant to a discussion.

I actually doubt that. Gossip mongers will “mong” no matter what the politics. WAGgers will WAG about their own as much as about the “other side”. My personal observations are that liberals tear apart their own with rumors and speculations much more that conservatives tear apart their own (at least historically … the Tea Party folk are trying to make up for lost time.)

12

Isn’t the SD founded on the principle of Practicing Hypocrisy? I don’t understand how you can complain about a website for following its founding principles.

13

May I make the observation, that I’ve made in other threads before, that IMO part of the issue is the apparent urge, desire, need to be able to use the specific label “hypocrisy” when actually, as pointed out by the OP , describing a failure to meet your own standard or confirmation bias. As in, sometimes it looks like it’s not enough to say shows a double standard, not enough to say it’s self-defeating, not enough to show they contradicted themselves, not enough to say it is a case of IOKIA[my side]DI; but that the speaker/writer WANTS to decree the word “hypocrite” shall be used to describe the subject, as if by making that one word stick somehow we win by a bigger score.

Sort of like “fascist” or “leftist” or “racist”, it becomes not so much a matter of accurately identifying the conduct or belief, but of sticking the label to one side so that then the argument becomes about “but I’m/He’s/We’re/They’re not being [LABEL]!” rather than the merit of the original complaint.(ETA: Or, what Max said)

14

I know what you mean. And in the end, an accusation of hypocrisy is an attack on someone’s general reasoning skills. It’s usually irrelevant to whatever discussion is going on, even if the accusation is justified. Sadly, it’s also very easy to derail threads with that kind of argument, since people naturally take these accusations personally.

15

No.

That isn’t the founding principle of the SDMB.

16

Possibly… but is it possible to have that discussion without it hijacking the original conversation?

I guess we just disagree. It’s MUCH more fun to gossip, and the gossip will take a much more malicious turn, about someone you dislike. (So to rephrase, I guess it’s possible that there would have been “as much speculation and gossip”, but it would have had a very different tone.)

17

All accusations of hypocrisy might as well be filed under *ad hominem *attacks. The truth of the accusation is really of no consequence to the argument.

As for Tom DeLay (R-Undead) his corruption is far worse than mere personal enrichment or playing fast and loose with the rules of privilege. He sought to corrupt the system of power, to stack the deck in favor of his political ideology. If one is truly committed to a democratic system of governance, this is far worse that dipping a greasy finger into the cookie jar (that would be you, Chollie Rangel!).

The simple fact that I am entirely innocent of the personal weakness of hypocrisy neither strengthens nor weakens my arguments, their perfection is based upon their own merits, which are abundant, apparent, and irrefutable. My wit, charm, and awe-inspiring sexual endowments ought to be set aside as having no bearing to the matter at hand.

18

Just for laughs, I’ve been reviewing the last days of december (remember him?), or as I like to call it, the Wholly Nonsense Feast.

I don’t see a big change in the overall behaviour between 2003 and now, so I guess whatever the OP’s complaining about, we’re stuck with it.

19

You mean to tell me that human nature hasn’t changed in the last 7 years? I find that hard to believe…

20

Much as I would love to leave untouched this inference, I can’t.

Max didn’t describe me as being fair-minded. He quoted me as describing myself as fair-minded:

I think I am, of course, but in that same spirit, I am constrained to point out that’s not exactly what was said. :slight_smile: