Flipocrisy Cuts Both Ways
A point which bears repeating
I’m a bit short on time this month; this post is a rewrite of one I published in 2022.
Why beholdest thou the SPECK that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the BEAM that is in thine own eye?...Thou hypocrite! –Matthew 7:3-5 (emphasis mine)
Consider these two screenshots from the platform formerly known as Twitter:
Both of these Tweets follow a similar line of reasoning:
In context A, my opponent supports X value.
In context B, my opponent opposes X value.
Therefore, my opponent is an idiot.
If you’re like me, you find that line of reasoning deliciously satisfying in one of the two Tweets, and feel the other is a bad faith attack. There are few pleasures in life like pointing out the contradictions of one’s foes—and few frustrations like having your position deliberately misrepresented.
But really, both of these Tweets are relying on the same trick—one which isn’t actually that clever or persuasive. The problem with these attacks is simple: Whenever a) your opponent’s positions are inconsistent and b) you disagree with both positions, then it is inevitably possible to frame your views as inconsistent. Let’s call this mirror-image inconsistency flipocrisy.1
Flipocrisy (n.) — an accusation of hypocrisy which can itself be flipped around to expose hypocrisy.
—
Allen: "Oh so it's fine for *you* to leave your dishes piled in the sink, but when *I* clip my toenails over the coffee table I'm a disgusting slob!?"
Bruce: "Don't be a flipocrite, Al—I could turn that shit right back on you!"
Let’s map this out a bit to see more clearly how it works. For example, Democrats could arguably be called the “party of freedom” on reproductive rights, drug legalization, and (to some extent) Palestinian statehood. Republicans could arguably be called the “party of freedom” on vaccinations, guns, and (to some extent) markets. The inconsistency here is symmetrical. If you believe only a hypocrite would support tyrannical vaccine mandates while touting the ridiculous idea of a woman’s “right to choose” then you, my friend, are a flipocrite: You also support the free choice in only one of these instances.
Of course, on any particular issue, the alleged hypocrites will be able to justify their views vis-a-vis some other value: They are not “anti-freedom” but rather pro-life, -safety, common sense, etc. Or perhaps they are in favor of some more nuanced version of “freedom” which leads them to supporting certain positions while opposing others.
The problem with all these defenses is that they also cut both ways: If it is possible to appeal to some value other than freedom, who is the arbiter of when this is or is not legitimate to do? How many epicycles can a person add to their model before they’re forced to throw it out completely?2 As far as I can see, there are two ways out of the thicket:
Commit maximally to the value in question; or
Accept that the mere presence of inconsistency is not very informative
The first option seems tempting because it sounds so simple. A libertarian, for example, might say that they are in favor of everything in the “pro-freedom” column; they support freedom for all people in all walks of life. (There is no hypocrisy if you support the right of both women and vaccine skeptics to choose!)
But of course this view is too simple to be workable. It neatly obfuscates the questions of who counts as a “person”—what to do when the path narrows too much for two lives to walk side-by-side. And in practice, not even the most zealous freedom-lovers among us care about liberty to the total exclusion of all other values. There will always be trade-offs and definitional questions; consistency with respect to one value will inevitably mean compromising on another.
It’s for these reasons that I tend much more toward the second answer, unsatisfying as it is: We will never achieve perfect consistency. This means, sadly, that hypocrisy tells us nothing about who is actually right—only that we need to investigate further and exercise judgment. If we’re lucky, we will find that although there are some compelling arguments in both directions, on net they favor a specific stance in a specific situation. If we’re unlucky, we’ll simply agree to disagree.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” Ralph Waldo Emerson famously wrote in Self-reliance. “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.” This drives at a bigger issue, here—a deeper reason to mistrust flipocrisy: When we satisfy ourselves with merely pointing out others’ hypocrisy, we shut down our own critical thinking and avoid the difficult work of particulars. In this vein, flipocrisy has a second, subtler meaning—“flip” in the sense of “unthinking” or “lacking in seriousness.” Flippant hypocrisy.
All to say, if your goal is to enthuse or entertain people who already agree with you, by all means continue to mock your enemies’ contradictions! If, however, you’re interested in seeking truth, changing minds, or building a better world: Get serious.3
In the original version of this post, I referred to the phenomenon by the less cute name “symmetrical hypocrisy.”
Epicycles are a pseudoscience concept from astronomers who wanted to maintain a geocentric model of the universe. The concept describes a mini-orbit that planets make while simultaneously completing their larger journey around the earth, an explanation which accounted for observed inconsistencies. Adding “epicycles” to a theory is a shorthand for making your model more complicated to fit available data rather than updating your underlying model.
And curious!