Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
Today in the mental model repair shop, we’re going to discuss how we assess hypocrisy. We’ll start with a specific anecdote and expand the lessons learned for many situations.
Hating Dissent in the Land of the Free
Long ago, my primary cause was animal rights. I read all the books, visited vegan restaurants, and attended protests against animal cruelty. Regarding those rallies, I was shocked at the scorn we received. Not because people disagreed with us, but because they seemed to dislike protest as an idea—without even knowing our cause. Maybe it was paranoia, but I often felt an ambient hostility from those passing by before they could see our signs or talk to us.
I gradually realized that people love to complain, but they hate hearing others do it. This attitude permeates American life. “America! Love it or leave it!” Wait, can’t I stay and voice a concern?
It still shocks me that most Americans have never used their First Amendment right to stand somewhere with a sign and protest anything. Do they really find everything perfect exactly how it currently is? Protesting is 100% legal. Why not do it? Because nobody wants to hear complaints, and people instinctively know if they complain, they’re in for some disdain.
The Classic “Sticker Defense”
Those driving by would often yell something, but it was impossible to understand them. Here’s a tip for drive-by commenters: hand gestures (thumbs up or middle fingers) are more effective. Funny thing is, from a distance, and at high speeds, they look the same.
For those walking by, there was a different tradition. Haters would point at our shoes and laugh. “You hypocrite! You care about harming animals for fur, but you’re wearing leather shoes!” Like too many wannabe-wits, these folks always considered this oft-repeated criticism wildly original, totally hilarious, and a complete invalidation of the suggestion that we shouldn’t be cruel to animals.
I had the solution. I printed labels with big block letters that read, “NOT LEATHER.” Each protester stuck them to the top of our shoes. Most of us wore niche brand vegan footwear—rubber, canvas, etc.—so this was mostly true.
When one of these aspiring contrarians strolled by and attempted to demonstrate their unique humor with a comment we had heard a thousand times, they would look down, point, and BAM! Thwarted!
A Busted Mental Model
Despite that, I took to heart the criticisms of hypocrisy. There was a grain of truth in them. In the years since, I’ve noticed that it’s a standard line of attack against anyone who proposes an idea for positive change.
Instead of assessing an idea, mediocre minds immediately size up the messenger, searching for any failing. No matter how microscopic, one is inevitably found, and the lazy thinker gladly returns to their unchanged mind, confident that the one speck of inconsistency holds back an avalanche of support.
I wanted to ask these folks. “Do you really think a vegan, sincere about their beliefs, trying with all their might to avoid animal cruelty, would buy leather shoes on purpose?” The answer is, “Of course not.”
Dear reader, have you ever tried to buy footwear that isn’t leather? Back then (20+ years ago) it was nearly impossible. It’s better now, but still not easy. There are many things labeled cruelty-free that sure feel like they aren’t. Have the materials changed? Or just the labeling?
It’s not necessarily the vegan who is hypocritical. The systems we live in don’t allow for many choices that are kind to our fellow animals.
A Lack of Options
That is the core of today’s discussion: whether by natural law or by human design, our choices are often so limited that we seem to be hypocrites no matter what we attempt. Our ability to impact the world as we desire is often impossible due to a restricted field of options, not our failures.
Suppose you want to resist the ongoing atrocities of the oil and gas industries (endless wars, climate change, worker exploitation, etc.) You buy an electric car. Then you learn that building them is also damaging to the environment. So you buy a bicycle. But there are no bike paths. Bicycling on roads with cars isn’t safe and is often illegal. You try and try, but your choices are limited, and/or your life is made more difficult. But if you finally get there, someone will point out the tires on your bike and the paved roads are also petrol products. Oh well.
This isn’t to whine that creating change is difficult—it always will be. My point is that we live in several severely controlled and artificial environments that have made 100% purity in our drive for positive change with personal choices nearly impossible.
Let’s try buying clothes. Many manufacturers have horrible labor practices in countries with no worker protections. You could make your own. But few have the skill to do that. Just because someone says, “I’m anti-child labor,” yet they wear shoes made in a factory that supports child labor – doesn’t mean they are wrong. It could mean they’re lazy and want the appearance of caring. It could also mean that buying new clothes that don’t exploit labor is nearly impossible.
I’ve seen this before. Someone says, “I want to avoid fossil fuels,” then some wannabe big thinker says, “Much of what you’re wearing comes from petroleum products.” My friendly contrarian, you may have exposed a hypocrite, but just as likely, you’ve exposed a restricted system.
Less Evil is still Evil… but it’s still Less, too
The key is to be wary of purity tests, because one of the most solid mental models is: Nobody’s perfect. When someone proposes an idea and appears hypocritical, I’d vote to consider the messenger, but also remember to consider the message.
There’s a righteous saying, “In choosing the lesser of two evils, one still chooses evil.” That’s true. But it neglects that, in many cases, a system is set up where we must choose one of a few evil (or least not good) choices. If you MUST choose, and both choices are “evil” — then choosing the lesser evil makes sense.
Rather than criticize the choice, it might be better to blame a system where you’re only given two flavors of evil to choose from.
Image by Bing Co-Pilot AI. Prompt: A king in an ornate throne room, standing before his throne, angrily pointing out of the room, ordering a messenger to leave.
If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for my newsletter on Substack and get each entry as it’s published. Thank you!