Monday, January 23, 2017

Hypocrisy and the 4 Stages of Anti-Progressivism

The 3 Stage of Anti-Progressivism

One of the things I have been fueled by in the last year or so is in pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. I always had believed the left vs. right paradigm to be a battle of principles, but in a year that view has been shattered. The progression is something like this:
  1. I disagree with the principles of the left.
  2. The principles of the left are inconsistent.
  3. The left has no principles.
Somone in Stage 1 will point out the flaws of liberal ideology. At Stage 2 all energy will be spent showing the contradictions of the left. That is, pointing out its hypocrisy. Stage 3 will proceed the same, although with increased exasperation. Before I proceed to Stage 4, let's look at what hypocrisy is, what it isn't, and how someone could erroneously come to the conclusion of hypocrisy.


Let's look at the two different logical predicates for hypocrisy. Let B be a belief, and a and b be actions or statements. At it's most basic description hypocrisy is this
B  ∧ (a → ¬B)
This would read like "you state a belief in B, yet action a indicates no belief in B." The predicate reduces to  ∧ ¬B. But B  and ¬B cannot both be true. Thus the contradiction. In practice hypocrisy claims often look like this:
(a → B)  ∧ (b → ¬B)
This would read as "your action a implies a belief B for some principle, but your action b indicates a lack of belief B. This is used to suggest the subject only uses principles when convenient, which would make them not really principles at all, but just crude political weapons.

False hypocrisy is where a predicate of the hypocrisy formula is not actually true. This occurs because it is either false that → B or it is false that → ¬B. This is an informal logical fallacy because the predicates are logically consistent, it is the underlying assumptions that are false. The implication that the action implies some belief is at risk of hasty generalization.

Let's use an example of a false implication. I am opposed to the Roe v. Wade ruling. This is a. Almost anyone who hears that will make the assumption → B1 , where B1  is the belief that women should not have legal access to abortions. This could be the basis to make all sorts of hypocrisy claims. But in reality → B2 , where B2 is the belief that Supreme Court rulings have no right to contravene the 10th Amendment. It's really a parliamentary argument rather than a moralistic one.

Group hypocrisy is a bit more complicated than individual hypocrisy. We'll use the notation G to denote a group, and G1 to denote a subgroup of group G. We'll use G as a function, so that G(a) means "G does a" and G(B) means "G believes B". We'll also use the function P(G) to mean "the group G is principled."

The false group hypocrisy fallacy to watch out for then is this:
(G1(a)→ B)  ∧ (G2(b) ¬B) → ¬G(P)
The reason this is a fallacy is because it is entirely possible for different beliefs to exist within a larger group. For instance I am conservative but also an atheist who isn't opposed to legal abortion. At least 90% of claims of conservative hypocrisy I encounter don't even apply to me. We must be careful when making those claims too. Many people who call themselves liberals are really Classical Liberals. They fundamentally have more in common with mainstream modern conservatives than they do with modern liberals (Progressives), they just often don't realize it. There is a growing subgroup of conservatives that reject Classical Liberalism as a reaction against Progressivism. They believe Classical Liberalism naturally leads way to Progressivism, which ironically is the strongest force destroying Classical Liberalism in western civilization. (Or as Stefan Molyneux calls it, civilization.) This subgroup is generally termed the Alt-Right, or the Neoreaction. Modern mainstream conservatives are trying to figure out how to have Classical Liberalism without Progressivism. The Alt-Right is for those who have become cynical of liberalism altogether. Sorry for the tangent, but as you can see applying broad generalizations for the purpose of proving hypocrisy is prone to the error of overgeneralizing a subgroup to the larger group.

Stage 4 of anti-Progressivism

Stage 4 is the realization that modern liberals aren't entirely unprincipled, but that they have one overriding principle that supersedes all others. From this point on in my blog I will refer to it as Antidiscrimination, The Holy Principle, or just The Principle (because Antidiscrimination is a lot to type). 

I've finally stepped into Stage 4, largely thanks to this lecture filmed a decade ago. The lecture is only 30 minutes long and is highly recommended.

I won't get too much into the details of Antidiscrimination, as that video lays it out very well. But do keep in mind that each Stage of Anti-Progressivism does not invalidate the prior stages. Antidiscrimination may be the Holiest of Principles, but still they violate it whenever it is convenient. They still discriminate when it comes to gender rights movements. SJWs I argue with on facebook almost always discriminate when they make mention of the fact that I'm white, as if it invalidates the arguments I make. They discriminate when they call white student unions racist, while permitting them for every other ethnicity. In general they discriminate every time they choose victim and oppressor identities.

If they universally applied the principle it would be one thing. But Antidiscrimination translates to, "Everything I don't like is caused by discrimination, and nothing I like is discrimination." It's not really a principle because it is entirely subjective and itself subservient to Intersectionality philosophy (which is itself subservient to an identity-based culture war of which the good and evil sides have been determined beforehand).

Moving beyond Hypocrisy

My major reason for writing is to encourage others in the right and alt-right to move beyond hypocrisy. You can point out the hypocrisy of the left all day long. Frankly at this point it doesn't matter. People on the left are largely immune to these logical arguments. If pointing out their hypocrisy was effective it would have worked already. The battle is always for the middle, and I'm not sure how effective it is either. When people on forums such the r/the_donald announce they're changing sides, abandoning liberalism, it is almost never, "I read some compelling logic that changed my mind." It is more like "the left has started doing things that completely disgust me." It is always an emotional decision first, rationale comes after.

Thus pointing out leftist hypocrisy may serve no purpose other than its therapeutic value to those of us so disturbed by them. I'm not sure it gets us anywhere. If our goal is to convert those in the center, we will get more success from antagonizing the left, to make them even more extreme. Keep calm and fan the flames of their insanity.

No comments:

Post a Comment