Hypocrisy in Politics Politics Analysis
Reply
Deception Detective 639 posts deceptiondetective Deception Detective 639 posts
deceptiondetective

Crying "Hypocrisy" is Weak Persuasion

In political discussions, it's common to see pundits and commentators point out hypocrisy, especially since politicians' public records make inconsistencies obvious. For example, critiques like 'Trump advocates for closed borders, yet his wife is from another country!' or 'Biden labeled Trump as too old for the presidency, yet he is older!' are all over X. But does any of it actually matter? 

 

Highlighting hypocrisy may be entertaining and offer a simple critique of the opposition, but it's not very persuasive. If the aim is just to score points against the other side, fair enough. But it doesn't seem productive - and might even be counterproductive - if your goal is to genuinely persuade people. Here's two reasons why:

 

  1. Ironically, it can affirm the opposition's principles by implying that the issue isn't with the principles themselves but in the opposition's failure to adhere to them.
  2. It may decrease the likelihood of individuals changing their minds to align with you, as they might fear being labeled hypocrites if they do. 

I'm curious if you agree with this, and if there are other reasons you'd add to why pointing out hypocrisy, despite being a popular and ancient rhetorical device, isn't actually that useful for persuasion.
Reply 8 0
MoonlitMystery Investigator 77 posts
MoonlitMystery
i see your point DD! the way i see the criticism of calling someone hypocritical is that it's an attack on one's character. because to be hypocritical means to manipulate your principles only to your advantage and when it's convenient to you. which suggests that you don't even hold value to those principals and that you're lying. pointing out the opposition's character flaws to the public i think can be useful for persuasion. this is one way i view it. 
Reply 1 0
RagingWriter Investigator 63 posts
RagingWriter
The old saying kill them with kindness comes to mind.
Reply 1 0
deceptiondetective Deception Detective 639 posts
deceptiondetective

In political discussions, it's common to see pundits and commentators point out hypocrisy, especially since politicians' public records make inconsistencies obvious. For example, critiques like 'Trump advocates for closed borders, yet his wife is from another country!' or 'Biden labeled Trump as too old for the presidency, yet he is older!' are all over X. But does any of it actually matter? 

 

Highlighting hypocrisy may be entertaining and offer a simple critique of the opposition, but it's not very persuasive. If the aim is just to score points against the other side, fair enough. But it doesn't seem productive - and might even be counterproductive - if your goal is to genuinely persuade people. Here's two reasons why:

 

  1. Ironically, it can affirm the opposition's principles by implying that the issue isn't with the principles themselves but in the opposition's failure to adhere to them.
  2. It may decrease the likelihood of individuals changing their minds to align with you, as they might fear being labeled hypocrites if they do. 

I'm curious if you agree with this, and if there are other reasons you'd add to why pointing out hypocrisy, despite being a popular and ancient rhetorical device, isn't actually that useful for persuasion.

 
Reductio ad Absurdum v. Hypocrisy 
 
Instead of calling out someone's hypocrisy, which might actually weaken your argument, I prefer to use reductio ad absurdum. This term, Latin for 'reduction to absurdity,' describes a classic rhetorical technique that has been the backbone of satire from ancient Greece to South Park. Essentially, you take an idea you disagree with and push it to its most extreme conclusion to show how absurd it really is. Think of it as a kind of logical jiu-jitsu, where you turn your opponent's strengths into their weaknesses.
 
Here are some recent examples I've found on X:
 
We live on stolen land. By “we”, I mean us mammals. We stole it from the dinosaurs. [X]
 
Scottish Police receive 4,000 complaints days after new Hate Speech law goes into effect. The majority of the complaints are related to a a 2020 viral video where Scotland’s leader went on an anti-white rant. Humza Yousaf’s speech received more complaints than JK Rowling’s tweets about transgenderism. Police are receiving on average 60 hate crime reports per hour, since April 1st. Police revealed: “We have received a number of complaints in relation to a speech in the Scottish Parliament on June 10, 2020. Earlier complaints regarding this matter were assessed at the time and it was established no crime was committed and no further action was required.” The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. [X] 
In 2014, Shawna Hammond from Oklahoma sought to have her driver's license photo taken with a spaghetti strainer on her head. She argued that wearing the colander was a religious requirement as a member of the Pastafarian faith. Surprisingly, her request was approved because the colander is recognized as the official headwear for Pastafarians, making it permissible under the state's guidelines for religious attire. Pastafarianism, founded by an Atheist in 2005, emerged as a protest against the inclusion of Creationism in school curricula. When questioned about her adherence to Pastafarianism, Shawna identified herself as an Atheist, emphasizing her belief in freedom of thought. She explained that to her, 'the colander represents freedom.’ [X] 
 
 
Reply 3 0
kerriberri (Desert Moon) Patron 837 posts
kerriberri (Desert Moon)
Those are great examples!!
I can think of a few times in my life where I've used reductio ad absurdum myself not realizing there was an actual term for it (don't remember the phrase even though I took years of Latin in high school. I did know immediately what it translates to though.)
Calling someone a hypocrite shuts down productive and meaningful conversation and discussion. 
"...But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you." - Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), Taken
Reply 1 0
Davey Jones Detective 272 posts
Davey Jones
is that really redaction ad absurdum?
 
i mean as i understand it it means extending an argument to infinity to criticize the result,
however, i am accustomed to it being used to ridicule a valid premise.
 
for instance musk there is making a valid argument, that directly comments
on the original premise, without hiding that fact.
he is basically saying it is silly to think of land as something that can be stolen.
which is an opinion, and a reasonable argument.
 
the way i understand it redactio ad absurdum is an attempt at extending an argument
to alter the nature of that argument, so as to criticize a result that no longer has bearing
on the original premise, but still appears to.
 
for example:
'i don't think i trust mr jewishlastnamovich' -> 'why do you hate the jews?'
as opposed to:
'i don't trust mr jewishlasnameovich because his hair style suggests he might be a criminal' -> 'so you're saying bald people are incapable of crime?'
 
do both of these count as redactio ad absurdum?
cuz i don't think they both count as a fallacy...
Nessun Dorma
Reply 0 0
kerriberri (Desert Moon) Patron 837 posts
kerriberri (Desert Moon)
It is "reductio", not redaction (which means to edit). Reductio ad absurdum literally translates to reduction to the absurd.
"...But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you." - Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), Taken
Reply 0 0
Davey Jones Detective 272 posts
Davey Jones
yes, but my questions is: reduction of what?
 
whether the thing being reduced is valid or not makes a big difference for the end result.
one is deceptive, the other is merely theatrical.
Nessun Dorma
Reply 2 0
deceptiondetective Deception Detective 639 posts
deceptiondetective
yes, but my questions is: reduction of what?
 
whether the thing being reduced is valid or not makes a big difference for the end result.
one is deceptive, the other is merely theatrical.
"Reduction to the absurd." "Reduction" in the sense of bringing something to a specified state or condition (i.e., absurdity), not minimization. 
Reply 1 0
Davey Jones Detective 272 posts
Davey Jones
what i'm asking is: is it redactio ad absurdum if the state the thing is reduced to does not
invalidate the thing being reduced?
 
like stand up comics will extend a premise to absurdity, but to the end of exposing the inherit silliness of the premise.
in some way the opposite of extending someones argument with the aim of making it seem less valid.
Nessun Dorma
Reply 1 0
MoonlitMystery Investigator 77 posts
MoonlitMystery
@Davey Jones I think the same way about many things in life, including some of the things DD talks about. I think many people focus more on the outcome of a situation and don't analyze the person's intentions. this confuses me bc I think sometimes intentions matter more than outcome. I think that can apply here. some people see it as the outcome of redactio ad absurdum, where as u and I don't think their intentions were to do that specifically so we don't see it that way. I hope this makes 75% sense 
Reply 0 0
Reply