On hypocrisy

Dalrymple:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.

Sailer:

Vladimir: Like take racial profiling. Don’t writers at New York Times or big magazine notice that black guy more likely to commit crime than white guy or Chinese guy? Don’t they see this with own two eyes?

Me: Oh, I get it. No, they have two eyes in their head, same as you do. They see what you see. When you talk to a nice white liberal about his personal life, he’s far more realistic in what he tells you than in what he writes for public consumption. When you ask him why he lives in his beautiful crime-free suburb, or why he sends his kid to a private school, or why he fought so long to get his kid into a magnet school, or why he wants his kid to specialize in soccer rather than basketball, he’ll tell you exactly why. He’ll generally use code words so he won’t have to mention race specifically, but that’s precisely what he’s talking about.

Vladimir (audibly relieved): You mean, he’s hypocrite?

Me: Yeah, exactly. It would hurt his career to write for the public what he thinks in his private life.

Vladimir: Thank God!

Me: Huh?

Vladimir: Hypocrite I understand. I grow up in Soviet Union. Lying to save your job, that’s life. No, I was very worried smart people in America weren’t hypocrites. You know, this country is supposed to be land of free, home of brave. I was scared that smart Americans weren’t hypocrites, but instead were hallucinating. I am very happy to hear they’re just hypocrites. Hypocrisy much less scary than mass hallucination.

Kotsko:

“Sure, I have racist thoughts. I’ve crossed the street to avoid a black man sometimes, but only at night. I mean, at least I’m honest about it, though, right?”

“I have had a lot of bad experiences with women, and yes, I’m resentful about it. It colors how I treat the women I meet. Even though I know in my head that it doesn’t make sense, in my gut I feel like every woman I date owes me sex on behalf of all those other bitches who teased me and left me high and dry. But hey, at least I’m honest!” …

I don’t think that any of us would say that statements like this represent important ethical achievements. Even in their own wording, they openly admit that they’re doing the very minimum — more honesty! Yet the “at least” may already be an overestimate: who would claim that unethical behavior suddenly becomes ethical when it is openly engaged in? …

In response to this radically self-serving post-ethical stance, all we can do is require people to stop being so damn honest and start being as hypocritical as possible — because say what you will of hypocrisy, at least it maintains the possibility of an ethos.

Advertisements

7 responses to “On hypocrisy

  1. Pingback: On hypocrisy | Reaction Times

  2. 1Z June 20, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Some people don’t want to live in poor, crime riddled neighbourhoods. That makes them hypocrites? No, it’s because they don’t admit that It’s All about Race. But here’s a thought. Maybe they dont admit it because they don’t believe it because it isnt true. Because inner city areas havevexactly the same problems in mostly white countries.

    Ethnically enough, Dalrymple is known for his eloquent writings on the white underclass in Britain…

  3. 1Z June 22, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    And there’s no possible explanation for that except race….not even availability if guns?

    • nydwracu June 22, 2014 at 10:06 pm

      Given the strength of the correlation Unz found, thinking that gun availability alone is responsible for that trend is positing epicycles. There is a population in the States that, for whatever set of reasons (many of which are obviously cultural, since this was not always the case), tends toward a much higher rate of violence than any other population present. This population is very much larger, in both percentage and absolute numbers, in the States than in Glasgow.

      Gun availability is probably a factor. There is a correlation, when the analysis is restricted to developed countries that aren’t South Africa. Demographic differences are also probably a factor.

      (Anyway, the scope of discourse in the last two quotes is pretty clearly the States. The correlation still exists.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: