Inconsistency or hypocrisy?

[bebotalk]

What's the difference between the two? Can one's views be inconsistent and not hypocritical?

I believe in full social equality for all and don't really tolerate bigotry against any group. but I would admit I despise any conventionally hot woman. they tend to be nasty and hypocritical, and get away with it since they know people will have their back. but I wouldn't openly discriminate against them or wish them any real harm. I don't see this as hypocrisy, but just a nuance. The major "harm" i cause hotties is just a few nasty glances, or being ruder than normal if they bump into me in public, or not speaking with them at social gatherings. 

 

[gettoefl]

a hypocrite is consciously inconsistent

the rest of us do it unconsciously, we feel better because we therefore are not hypocrite sinners

say what you like about a hypocrite but they are what they are honestly

[Consept]

Hypocritical behavior is basically when you have a principle that you believe should be followed but you dont follow it yourself. This includes inconsistency which is hallmark of hypocritical behavior. I think this is the case regardless of you being conscious of it or not, if your not conscious of it then you just aren't self-aware but it doesnt change the fact that youre being hypocritical. 

Prejudice, as youve brought up, is a great example as we probably all fall into this at some point. So youre trying to square that you dont tolerate prejudice against any group but you do have a prejudice against 'hot women'. This is the case for most people, on the whole they dont like prejudice esp when directed at a group they identify with but then they may also have a prejudice against another group which they see as justified. Now this is hypocritical because if you dont think prejudice is acceptable then that means all prejudice period, you cant pick and choose. Its kinda like saying, 'murder is wrong, unless you really dont like the person and want to kill them', you obviously wouldnt kill someone you dont like, so the only way to test your integrity of belief is to put in a situation where you would in your case be prejudice. 

The justification just allows you in your mind to keep your stance while still doing the action that you supposedly dont tolerate. It is hard to be consistent though and takes a lot of effort, basically the classic Jesus golden rule of 'do on to others as you would have done onto you' is a basic way to test your hypocritical blindspots. In your case if you would be happy for someone to judge you as nasty and be rude to you based on the way you look then I guess its fair enough for you to treat others like that, but obviously most people would not want to be treated in that way. 

[bebotalk]

20 minutes ago, Consept said:

Hypocritical behavior is basically when you have a principle that you believe should be followed but you dont follow it yourself. This includes inconsistency which is hallmark of hypocritical behavior. I think this is the case regardless of you being conscious of it or not, if your not conscious of it then you just aren't self-aware but it doesnt change the fact that youre being hypocritical. 

Prejudice, as youve brought up, is a great example as we probably all fall into this at some point. So youre trying to square that you dont tolerate prejudice against any group but you do have a prejudice against 'hot women'. This is the case for most people, on the whole they dont like prejudice esp when directed at a group they identify with but then they may also have a prejudice against another group which they see as justified. Now this is hypocritical because if you dont think prejudice is acceptable then that means all prejudice period, you cant pick and choose. Its kinda like saying, 'murder is wrong, unless you really dont like the person and want to kill them', you obviously wouldnt kill someone you dont like, so the only way to test your integrity of belief is to put in a situation where you would in your case be prejudice. 

The justification just allows you in your mind to keep your stance while still doing the action that you supposedly dont tolerate. It is hard to be consistent though and takes a lot of effort, basically the classic Jesus golden rule of 'do on to others as you would have done onto you' is a basic way to test your hypocritical blindspots. In your case if you would be happy for someone to judge you as nasty and be rude to you based on the way you look then I guess its fair enough for you to treat others like that, but obviously most people would not want to be treated in that way. 

You make a lot of fair points.

Though I can fully accept that others can and would judge me on appearance. I may not like it, but I accept it as a reality. 

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

You make a lot of fair points.

Though I can fully accept that others can and would judge me on appearance. I may not like it, but I accept it as a reality. 

Yeah I get that, we all do it of course. But at the same time I dont think you'd say it was a fair way of behaving. I don't know anything about you, but let's say you're Indian, if someone had the opinion that all Indians were rude, you would probably think at best that person is ignorant or at worst an evil person. 

So back to the original point, although you can accept that someone may judge you, you don't like people doing so. In which case do you not like the act of judging based on looks itself or do you just not like when you are judged? Of course if you don't like when you are judged but are happy to judge others then that's hypocritical. If you say you don't like judging others as a whole but then judge others then yeah that's hypocritical. 

It takes a real conscious effort to not be hypocritical btw and even then there will still be some blindspots but I believe its something we should strive for.

[bebotalk]

16 hours ago, Consept said:

Yeah I get that, we all do it of course. But at the same time I dont think you'd say it was a fair way of behaving. I don't know anything about you, but let's say you're Indian, if someone had the opinion that all Indians were rude, you would probably think at best that person is ignorant or at worst an evil person. 

So back to the original point, although you can accept that someone may judge you, you don't like people doing so. In which case do you not like the act of judging based on looks itself or do you just not like when you are judged? Of course if you don't like when you are judged but are happy to judge others then that's hypocritical. If you say you don't like judging others as a whole but then judge others then yeah that's hypocritical. 

It takes a real conscious effort to not be hypocritical btw and even then there will still be some blindspots but I believe its something we should strive for.

I've been taught that we're owed nothing and that nobody has to be nice, though people can be nice. We can't control others' reactions or behaviours. I myself am black, and most black people or others from marginalised groups would be on guard for any real bigotry. So it fits really, IMHO. It's foolish to expect people to always be welcoming in any space. 

[Consept]

38 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

I've been taught that we're owed nothing and that nobody has to be nice, though people can be nice. We can't control others' reactions or behaviours. I myself am black, and most black people or others from marginalised groups would be on guard for any real bigotry. So it fits really, IMHO. It's foolish to expect people to always be welcoming in any space. 

I don't know if you understand my point, I'm not saying everyone has to be nice and welcoming in any space to anyone, its not realistic. 

Your question initially is what is hypocrisy. I'm looking at it from an internal point of view, in that, if you believe internally that when people judge you based on appearance, race etc is wrong, even if you accept it and don't complain about it, then by definition you also believe that when you do it to others it's wrong. The only difference is in the first I stance someone is doing it to you and the second you're doing it to someone else. So the fact that you excuse it when it's done by you to someone else but believe it's wrong (even if you accept it) would be hypocritical. 

It's like black people who believe racism is wrong when it's against black people but are then racist toward other groups of people in the same way that they think is wrong. 

Does this make sense? 

[zurew]

The word hypocrite is much more morally loaded than the word inconsistent.  In fact I would say, one main difference between the two is that the word hypocrite cannot be used without any moral load, but the word inconsistent can be.

[Razard86]

18 hours ago, Consept said:

Hypocritical behavior is basically when you have a principle that you believe should be followed but you dont follow it yourself. This includes inconsistency which is hallmark of hypocritical behavior. I think this is the case regardless of you being conscious of it or not, if your not conscious of it then you just aren't self-aware but it doesnt change the fact that youre being hypocritical. 

Prejudice, as youve brought up, is a great example as we probably all fall into this at some point. So youre trying to square that you dont tolerate prejudice against any group but you do have a prejudice against 'hot women'. This is the case for most people, on the whole they dont like prejudice esp when directed at a group they identify with but then they may also have a prejudice against another group which they see as justified. Now this is hypocritical because if you dont think prejudice is acceptable then that means all prejudice period, you cant pick and choose. Its kinda like saying, 'murder is wrong, unless you really dont like the person and want to kill them', you obviously wouldnt kill someone you dont like, so the only way to test your integrity of belief is to put in a situation where you would in your case be prejudice. 

The justification just allows you in your mind to keep your stance while still doing the action that you supposedly dont tolerate. It is hard to be consistent though and takes a lot of effort, basically the classic Jesus golden rule of 'do on to others as you would have done onto you' is a basic way to test your hypocritical blindspots. In your case if you would be happy for someone to judge you as nasty and be rude to you based on the way you look then I guess its fair enough for you to treat others like that, but obviously most people would not want to be treated in that way. 

We can just say prejudice of any kind is hypocrisy because nobody likes prejudice but we all do it at some level. If you lived in a neighborhood and people wearing red shirts beat the crap out of you everyday. When you move from that neighborhood you would still assume people wearing red shirts would hurt you. Understandable sure, but its not fair to people who wear red shirts to be unfairly judged because of your past, but we all do it. 

The more conscious you are the more you can mitigate how often this happens but we all have prejudged at some point in our life. Yes this is hypocrisy, yes you are a hypocrite but so is everybody who has ever lived. Even Jesus Christ was a hypocrite. He preached turn the other cheek, and took out a whip and whipped people and overturned tables to chase people out of a temple he thought they were desecrating. We go against our beliefs sometimes because life is fluid and you cannot strictly adhere to any paradigm perfectly because life is INFINITE. 

Accepting you are a hypocrite can teach you compassion for those who are unconsciously hypocrites.

[bebotalk]

5 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

We can just say prejudice of any kind is hypocrisy because nobody likes prejudice but we all do it at some level. If you lived in a neighborhood and people wearing red shirts beat the crap out of you everyday. When you move from that neighborhood you would still assume people wearing red shirts would hurt you. Understandable sure, but its not fair to people who wear red shirts to be unfairly judged because of your past, but we all do it. 

The more conscious you are the more you can mitigate how often this happens but we all have prejudged at some point in our life. Yes this is hypocrisy, yes you are a hypocrite but so is everybody who has ever lived. Even Jesus Christ was a hypocrite. He preached turn the other cheek, and took out a whip and whipped people and overturned tables to chase people out of a temple he thought they were desecrating. We go against our beliefs sometimes because life is fluid and you cannot strictly adhere to any paradigm perfectly because life is INFINITE. 

Accepting you are a hypocrite can teach you compassion for those who are unconsciously hypocrites.

Modifying a rule is normal. That's not hypocrisy. One can say theft is wrong but support it in the case of a starving person. 

[bebotalk]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

The word hypocrite is much more morally loaded than the word inconsistent.  In fact I would say, one main difference between the two is that the word hypocrite cannot be used without any moral load, but the word inconsistent can be.

imho, inconsistency doesn't have to have a negative connotation. the two imho aren't the same. 

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

imho, inconsistency doesn't have to have a negative connotation. the two imho aren't the same

Yes, thats what im saying as well.

By moral load, I basically meant negative connotation

Edited February 24 by zurew

[Consept]

19 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Accepting you are a hypocrite can teach you compassion for those who are unconsciously hypocrites.

Yes I agree, im not even throwing judgement at those that are unconsciously hypocrites. I think hypocrite as a word is one of those words like racist, where its reduced to just an insult, those that say it are saying it as an insult and those that are receiving are taking it as an insult. I try to avoid saying someone is an out and out hypocrite or racist I prefer to say hypocritical behaviour or racist behaviour, with the exception of if they themselves label themselves as such. As you brought up Jesus he says love the sinner hate the sin which i think is a beautiful way of being or at least striving toward. 

20 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

Modifying a rule is normal. That's not hypocrisy. One can say theft is wrong but support it in the case of a starving person.

I think you dont like the hypocrite label which is why youd prefer being labelled as inconsistent. Which is fine you can do that and i understand it makes you feel more justified to do as such but i think, esp on a forum like this where we're all trying to improve, it would be more beneficial to actively look at where you are being hypocritical rather than trying to justify it. You have to see that no one who is obviously a hypocrite will label themselves as a hypocrite, thats literally the whole point. Hitler would not say 'oh yeah im a hypocrite because i hated the way German people will treated and now im treating Jewish people even worse', he would say exactly what youre saying which is 'yeah persecution is wrong but these are justified reasons'. Religious people who condemn others for sinning but then sin themselves, would not call themselves hypocrites they justify their behaviour whilst condemning others. 

But i understand its hard to take on this perspective because it makes you seem 'wrong' because of your dislike of 'hot women', as in you cant sustain that dislike and not be hypocritical, so your options are either realise you shouldnt dislike your chosen group of people or change your perception of your prejudice so that its not as bad as other prejudices and its justified. 

47 minutes ago, zurew said:

The word hypocrite is much more morally loaded than the word inconsistent.  In fact I would say, one main difference between the two is that the word hypocrite cannot be used without any moral load, but the word inconsistent can be.

I would say to be a hypocrite, youd have to be preaching one thing and practising another. So like the preacher says how much he hates gay people but then gets caught in a hotel room with a male prostitute. So it implies a moral load just because essentially its someone being deceitful knowingly. Inconsistent is just something thats not consistent, that can be im inconsistent when it comes to the going to the gym, theres not necessarily anything moral, but if i was judging people for not going to the gym consistently whilst myself not doing it, then that would be hypocritical. 

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, bebotalk said:

Modifying a rule is normal. That's not hypocrisy. One can say theft is wrong but support it in the case of a starving person. 

It's still hypocrisy, you are saying one thing and doing another. Also nobody has to accept your modification. Your modification is your own justification. That theft you did as a starving person? What if that store shut down and the only food they had left was the last food you took off the shelves to feed your selfish behind? It's easy to play that game of it's okay because its an emergency but what about the person you took from or hurt?

Who draws the line, where is the line? From your vantage point its okay, but from their vantage point you are just a thief. Also saying its okay to modify a rule is something only a hypocrite would say. It's so self serving!!!

[zurew]

42 minutes ago, Consept said:

I would say to be a hypocrite, youd have to be preaching one thing and practising another. So like the preacher says how much he hates gay people but then gets caught in a hotel room with a male prostitute. So it implies a moral load just because essentially its someone being deceitful knowingly. Inconsistent is just something thats not consistent, that can be im inconsistent when it comes to the going to the gym, theres not necessarily anything moral, but if i was judging people for not going to the gym consistently whilst myself not doing it, then that would be hypocritical. 

Thats roughly my understanding of these words as well.

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

Yes I agree, im not even throwing judgement at those that are unconsciously hypocrites. I think hypocrite as a word is one of those words like racist, where its reduced to just an insult, those that say it are saying it as an insult and those that are receiving are taking it as an insult. I try to avoid saying someone is an out and out hypocrite or racist I prefer to say hypocritical behaviour or racist behaviour, with the exception of if they themselves label themselves as such. As you brought up Jesus he says love the sinner hate the sin which i think is a beautiful way of being or at least striving toward. 

I think you dont like the hypocrite label which is why youd prefer being labelled as inconsistent. Which is fine you can do that and i understand it makes you feel more justified to do as such but i think, esp on a forum like this where we're all trying to improve, it would be more beneficial to actively look at where you are being hypocritical rather than trying to justify it. You have to see that no one who is obviously a hypocrite will label themselves as a hypocrite, thats literally the whole point. Hitler would not say 'oh yeah im a hypocrite because i hated the way German people will treated and now im treating Jewish people even worse', he would say exactly what youre saying which is 'yeah persecution is wrong but these are justified reasons'. Religious people who condemn others for sinning but then sin themselves, would not call themselves hypocrites they justify their behaviour whilst condemning others. 

But i understand its hard to take on this perspective because it makes you seem 'wrong' because of your dislike of 'hot women', as in you cant sustain that dislike and not be hypocritical, so your options are either realise you shouldnt dislike your chosen group of people or change your perception of your prejudice so that its not as bad as other prejudices and its justified. 

I would say to be a hypocrite, youd have to be preaching one thing and practising another. So like the preacher says how much he hates gay people but then gets caught in a hotel room with a male prostitute. So it implies a moral load just because essentially its someone being deceitful knowingly. Inconsistent is just something thats not consistent, that can be im inconsistent when it comes to the going to the gym, theres not necessarily anything moral, but if i was judging people for not going to the gym consistently whilst myself not doing it, then that would be hypocritical. 

I wasn't saying you were being judgmental I'm just saying we need to get rid of our judgment of the word hypocrite. Why? Because we are all hypocrites. If everyone in here studies and observes themselves HARD ENOUGH you will catch yourself do the very thing you get on other people about. For example lying. We all have told lies out of fear, yet we get on people who tell lies. Then we make distinctions on certain types of lies etc.

It's this type of self-serving behavior that is at the heart of all that we call evil or wicked. This is why shadow work is so important. We must accept that all human evil in the world we are capable of doing. Unless someone does sufficient shadow work they will be unconsciously a hypocrite in some way.

[Consept]

43 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

I wasn't saying you were being judgmental I'm just saying we need to get rid of our judgment of the word hypocrite. Why? Because we are all hypocrites. If everyone in here studies and observes themselves HARD ENOUGH you will catch yourself do the very thing you get on other people about. For example lying. We all have told lies out of fear, yet we get on people who tell lies. Then we make distinctions on certain types of lies etc.

It's this type of self-serving behavior that is at the heart of all that we call evil or wicked. This is why shadow work is so important. We must accept that all human evil in the world we are capable of doing. Unless someone does sufficient shadow work they will be unconsciously a hypocrite in some way.

Yeah I definitely agree, I think thats whats really meant in the Bible about everyone being sinners and not perfect. It is really hard work to keep aware of all your own hypocrisy but a worthwhile thing to do.

[bebotalk]

10 hours ago, Razard86 said:

It's still hypocrisy, you are saying one thing and doing another. Also nobody has to accept your modification. Your modification is your own justification. That theft you did as a starving person? What if that store shut down and the only food they had left was the last food you took off the shelves to feed your selfish behind? It's easy to play that game of it's okay because its an emergency but what about the person you took from or hurt?

Who draws the line, where is the line? From your vantage point its okay, but from their vantage point you are just a thief. Also saying its okay to modify a rule is something only a hypocrite would say. It's so self serving!!!

That's an extreme scenario, and one can go down a rabbit hole of hypotheticals.  not all stores would be on the brink of collapse. The fact is many would say not all theft is wrong. Not all killing is wrong either. And there is a difference between hypocrisy and inconsistency. that's my view and it's pretty common, despite your internal mental blindedness. I'd still say that inconsistency isn't the same as hypocrisy. 

Edited February 25 by bebotalk

[bebotalk]

9 hours ago, Razard86 said:

I wasn't saying you were being judgmental I'm just saying we need to get rid of our judgment of the word hypocrite. Why? Because we are all hypocrites. If everyone in here studies and observes themselves HARD ENOUGH you will catch yourself do the very thing you get on other people about. For example lying. We all have told lies out of fear, yet we get on people who tell lies. Then we make distinctions on certain types of lies etc.

It's this type of self-serving behavior that is at the heart of all that we call evil or wicked. This is why shadow work is so important. We must accept that all human evil in the world we are capable of doing. Unless someone does sufficient shadow work they will be unconsciously a hypocrite in some way.

Life is about complexities and exceptions. 

[bebotalk]

On 24/02/2024 at 0:48 PM, Consept said:

Yes I agree, im not even throwing judgement at those that are unconsciously hypocrites. I think hypocrite as a word is one of those words like racist, where its reduced to just an insult, those that say it are saying it as an insult and those that are receiving are taking it as an insult. I try to avoid saying someone is an out and out hypocrite or racist I prefer to say hypocritical behaviour or racist behaviour, with the exception of if they themselves label themselves as such. As you brought up Jesus he says love the sinner hate the sin which i think is a beautiful way of being or at least striving toward. 

I think you dont like the hypocrite label which is why youd prefer being labelled as inconsistent. Which is fine you can do that and i understand it makes you feel more justified to do as such but i think, esp on a forum like this where we're all trying to improve, it would be more beneficial to actively look at where you are being hypocritical rather than trying to justify it. You have to see that no one who is obviously a hypocrite will label themselves as a hypocrite, thats literally the whole point. Hitler would not say 'oh yeah im a hypocrite because i hated the way German people will treated and now im treating Jewish people even worse', he would say exactly what youre saying which is 'yeah persecution is wrong but these are justified reasons'. Religious people who condemn others for sinning but then sin themselves, would not call themselves hypocrites they justify their behaviour whilst condemning others. 

But i understand its hard to take on this perspective because it makes you seem 'wrong' because of your dislike of 'hot women', as in you cant sustain that dislike and not be hypocritical, so your options are either realise you shouldnt dislike your chosen group of people or change your perception of your prejudice so that its not as bad as other prejudices and its justified. 

I would say to be a hypocrite, youd have to be preaching one thing and practising another. So like the preacher says how much he hates gay people but then gets caught in a hotel room with a male prostitute. So it implies a moral load just because essentially its someone being deceitful knowingly. Inconsistent is just something thats not consistent, that can be im inconsistent when it comes to the going to the gym, theres not necessarily anything moral, but if i was judging people for not going to the gym consistently whilst myself not doing it, then that would be hypocritical. 

Unless you can read my mind, you cannot presuppose anything here. 

We just have different definitions of hypocrisy.