The opposite of objective is. . . non objective. Allowing other factors to affect one’s judgements can include several concepts, including mysticism, subjectivity, and hypocrisy, this last of which we will focus on here. In fact, we chose the word “objective” as part of our website title specifically because it is the opposite of hypocritical.
We all know what hypocrisy means but, given its importance to our mission, we will talk about it anyway. Hypocrisy means having a double standard—evaluating the same event with different criteria depending on who stands to benefit from the evaluation. For a given set of circumstances, things that benefit yourself or your position are looked upon more positively, and things that benefit your opponents are seen in a more negative light.
It seems that everyone agrees that hypocrisy is not a good thing, but just how bad is it? We maintain that it is one of the loathsome and insidious of faults. What separates us from animals? In large part, the ability to interact with each other to mutual benefit, even if we are not from the same family, pack, or clan. That ability entails empathy, and the ability to envision things from another person’s perspective, which in turn led us to the Golden Rule: do not do unto others what you do not want them to do unto you.
You see then that the Golden Rule, one of the most valuable ideas in the history of civilization, involves applying ideas to yourself and others by the same standard. This is objectivity, not hypocrisy. Thus, if we permit hypocrisy, the Golden Rule is violated and we are in essence back to treating each other as predator and prey—no better than any other animal.
The way to detect hypocrisy is well known: identify the principle that is involved and ask oneself, how would you react if the people involved were different? If the reaction is one thing for one set of people and a different thing for another set, you have likely uncovered an example of hypocrisy. We say ‘likely’ because there are times that the identification of the principle involved may be what needs rethinking.
For example, let’s compare apples and oranges. If one were to say “I won’t eat this orange because its skin is too green,” and then proceed to eat an apple with green skin is not to be a hypocrite: you statement about green skin was not stated as a drawback to all fruits, but rather was specific to the nature of oranges. If, however, you were to object to eating one orange on the basis of its green skin and then immediately proceed to eat a different orange with equally green skin, we would have reason to question why you really rejected the first orange.
The primary reason why Democrats are so prone to hypocrisy is that the tenets of their political positions eschew the mere existence of principles. They are at war with reality, and do not wish to believe that things are true or false, fact or fiction, outside of their own will. They routinely embrace all of the attributes of the spoiled brat: no responsibility for one’s own actions, no golden rule (predator-prey relationship through bullying, tantrums, etc.).
When arguing with a lefty who is being hypocritical, the best solution is to identify the principle involved right away, and to keep returning to it. Yes, there are lefties who are so far gone that they will not blench from having their hypocrisy shown to the world, but (1) probably anyone else listening will care, and (2) even a hardened lefty often knows when he is losing an argument.
Let us close with a few examples of hypocrisy:
- Members of the U.S. have passed many laws that the average citizen must abide by, but from which they have exempted themselves (i.e., Obamacare, mask mandates, etc.)
- When Michelle Obama gets criticized some call it proof of sexism, but when Sarah Palin is criticized, those same people are silent.
- The lefties love to say “follow the science” when it supports their conclusions, but they are not at all fond of following science that goes against what they want to believe.
- When there is a possibility of collusion between the Russians and Donald Trump, that is considered horrible—grounds for impeachment!—but when Hillary Clinton is shown to have colluded with the Russians in various ways, that is no problem at all.
- “Hanging chads” in Florida in 2000 are considered by some to be a significant election concern, but altered software programs, changing of ballot dates, large dumps of nearly 100% uniform ballots in the wee hours of the morning, etc., etc., are a ho-hummer.
- Conservatives are criticized by some for being “uncivil” if they attack the lefties, but those same lefties can hurl the most vile, hate-filled, unhinged invective at conservatives all day long without those same people objecting at all.
- Some Democrats object to gatherings by liberty-loving people to protest government overreach and mandates, but then have no problem when a different set of people get together to protest, loot, pillage, and riot as a result of one of their pet issues.
- Groups like the Ku Klux Klan get criticized by both parties for their attitude of racial supremacy, but the lefties have no condemnation when a group like BLM displays the same bigoted, chauvinistic attitude about race.
The list goes on forever. I am sure we will add to this list, but this is certainly enough to illustrate the point.
We wish you the best of luck (1) minimizing hypocrisy in your own life and (2) calling it out whenever you encounter it.
Objective and Skeptical 