WMN: t3_2v0u7q_t1_codowga

[TITLE]

CMV: Irony and hypocrasy aren't relevant to the argument...any argument.

[mehatch]

edit: **WORST TITLE EVER** irony of ironies of ironies i failed to follow even [my own advice](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2swp9d/meta_some_advice_for_posters_to_cmv/) and take time to fully flesh out my title specifically to my real point. To that end a delta was awarded [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2v0u7q/cmv_irony_and_hypocrasy_arent_relevant_to_the/codmw1m) to /u/DHCKris I beg you, please read my fail title as roughly **"CMV: Irony and hypocracy work great to influence opinions, but IMHO they're red herrings which distract from, and can even be counter to, legitimate and productive between opposing arguments on serious topics. By Arguments I mean the *arguments themselves" i.e. the 'argument' from design. etc. "** Onto the actual post: **TL; DR. pointing out irony and hypocrasy often does more to illuminate one's own imperfect knowledge of the world, distracts from real discussion, and doesn't substaintively or coherently contribute to actual arguments regarding the morality, effectiveness, priority, solutions for, etc. about real serious issues in the world.** In the sense of irony, i'm using the specific definition wherein an author might say: I1: *"Don't you think it's ironic that Al Gore flew a jet to go to a conference about reducing fossil fuel emmissions?"* or I2: *"How could George W Bush claim to be a Christian and still invade Iraq?"* And while the distinction might be negligible here, I'll clarify on the types of examples of the use of hypocrisy H1: *"Who is the United States to tell other nations they cannot have nuclear weapons when they are the only country to actually use them in combat?"* or H2*"Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone"* **My view is that, much like how these types of [optical](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1147424/thumbs/o-OPTICAL-ILLUSIONS-570.jpg?3) 1 [illusions](http://imgur.com/gallery/WERMpnE) 2, make us see things which aren't there even when we are aware of that fact....irony and hypocracy are cognitive illusions, in that like how we end up seeing motion or colors the *aren't there* as in the above illusions, when we encounter irony/hypocracy we see *importance* which *isn't there*.** Now lets take two people making identical claims: Mom #1: is arguing that her local school board give money to hire crosswalk guards at all the elementary schools. Mom #2: makes the same argument, but had 20 years prior, in a moment of distraction, accidentally hit and killed a schoolchild at a crosswalk. In the end, when it comes to a public policy decision, all that actually matters is, what does it cost, what are the evidence for expected benefits, and does it violate any laws or rights to implement? What *doesn't matter* is whether or not the person making the argument happens to either in the past, or currently, acts in a way counter to their own stated opinion. Either the argument works, or it doesn't. An alcoholic might advise someone on the brink of becoming one to drink less. A smoker might tell kids not to smoke. There can be a pro-environmental argument in favor of more landfills. Why do they work?, why do they 'hack our priority-making' and whatnot? Because to deny the power of the irony is to admit a lack of personal knowledge, and even a threat to our very identity. Hear me out on this... If i think that out of necessity we make categories of things in the world and expected behaviors from them. Birds sing, cars roll on wheels, trees grow, and stones rock! They are inherently imperfect categories, to some degree hamfisted at some pixellation, but ultimately nonetheless it's important to most human beings, myself included, unconsciously and emotionally *that they are true*. To admit otherwise is to admit *we don't care that what we believe is true*. There's an old saying, somethign to the effect of: "Until we step outside of this, by default people tend to think something aking to: 'when I do something to you which hurt you, i was a victim of accident/ and/or circumstance...but when you do it to me, you do it deliberately, on purpose, against me.' " The "us" is always just doing their best against this crazy unfair world, but the "them" does things on purpose, for reasons, as part of a plan. Even the great villains think they're "in the right". But when we open our minds and say (from I2 above) "well, maybe GWB thought given limited time, information, and resources going to war on Iraq was the maximally moral this to do in the light of human rights, democracy, and the bible's teachings." admitting that GWB might be, like most of us, a thoughtful and decent person who made a hard choice balancing limited options and information, is to remove the 'otherness', and humanizing a political opponent makes it easier on them...so we can't. It' s just easier to 'other' them. So to allow irony to flow through you and tie some opinion-making-synapses into knots which haven't gone through the proper evidence/argument auditing and due dilligence, is to stubbornly stick by a ham-fisted category...rather than admit you may have formed that category in error or laziness, and thus reveal you aren't a perfect rational being who makes all important choices for fair and logical reasons during moments of complete conscious free-will-decisioning. And that last bit i think is the most crucial. Irony forces us to go along because to fight against it is admit we don't have the kind of free will our factory-refresh brain OS is programmed to think of ourselves as having. Irony holds a gun to the head of your very identity and forces you to go along with it's take. And that's BAD because it leads to entrenchment, lack of open-mindedness, and all kinds of media-related time-wasting cacophony, when all we really want to know is "Does the proposition have evidence in support of it, how much does it cost, and does it violate any laws or rights in implementation." Along with a meta-analysis or project priority & budget triage. But to let Irony become a large part of the serious political discourse among even top academics on topics which actually lead to the life or death or happiness or success of millions...is to not treat those topics with the grave seriousness I'd prefer would attend to them. Notes: 1. This argument does not speak to "trustworthiness" of public figures. A source of information by category may over time prove more or less reliable. I don't need more examples to know I don't need to scrutinize something cited by Steven Pinker as much as I do to a top link on /r/conspiracy. Pinker's earned my trust, /r/conspiracy hasn't. 2. I'm a huge fan of comedy, drama, etc. Irony in these contexts can be a profound and effective storytelling tool. So i'm not gonna poo-poo a great ironic joke, or villain death, im speaking here to discourse on serious issues. 3. "let he who has never sinned" - i'll bet this has done a great deal of good in the world...but I'm speaking to a modern, complex world where decisions hinge on all kinds of urgent and counter-intuitive factors...problems bigger than any single one of us, and having a conversation about the actual facts and effects in reality gets slowed down when the smartest guy in the room thinks up an irony and suddenly he wins, but the project loses. **What might change my view?** Perhaps I'm missing something and Irony actually has some kind of syllogistic jiu-jitsu i haven't thought of that actually plays into real solutions to real problems. Or...perhaps you might make a case that the value we get from irony when applied to serious topics is useful moreso than it's in the way. So, bring me back to the normal human fold, make me love irony in politics again, Change my view! edit: added TL; DR at top. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[Theduckisback]

You've essentially hit upon an idea that's been explored from Plato all the way down to John Stuart Mill. Namely, that people are far more complicated than the comic book caricatures that our minds make them into most of the time. The utilitarians even went as far to say that no one ever makes a decision that they consciously believe it is bad, that their minds will always find a way to "prove" to themselves at least that the ends justify the means. And I don't really have any intellectual objections to that. however, it is important to understand that as human beings we have a very difficult time of viewing ideas in a vacuum. Identity politics are still hugely important to the people who vote and decide who gets to make those decisions. You even conceived in your argument that over time One source of information can prove to be more reliable and valuable than another. Identity politics is essentially doing the same thing but on a micro scale. Pointing out seeming inconsistencies in a platform is what people do because we view their platform as a whole, rather than one policy proposal in a vacuum. When a person proclaims himself to be a champion of freedom as an idea but has specific policy proposals which limit freedom, people feel justified in pointing it out. And I agree that there are any number of a parent "ironies" that one could observe which essentially allows people to dismiss anything that a person has to say. which means that there are throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. By pointing out one seemingly conflicting proposal people use it as an excuse to disregard anything that the person says, even if it has value. But I would also argue that much like your argument about sources, certain ironies or bigger and more profound than others. Al Gore taking a plane to a climate change summit is ironic on the surface, but in no way doesn't diminish the validity of his arguments about climate change. (Plus, on a normative level how else is he supposed to get there?) I didn't find the argument about Bush invading a rack while being a Christian to be that compelling of an argument/irony. simply because he's hardly the first person to do it. And there are Christian just war arguments that have been handed down over centuries. Far more compelling of an irony, was his use of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to justify war with the Iraqis, while not questioning the Saudi's who were much more involved in the attacks, and then, several years after the fact declaring that capturing were killing Osama bin Ladin was not that important to him. The juxtaposition of those two ideas so close together, and so at odds with each other, is both verbal and situational irony. Because, it directly contradicts the specific policy proposal that he had made just a few years earlier. And, not just beat up Republicans. when Obama claimed to be for public financing of elections, but then to turn around and reject that money in favor of private donations, that too is an irony worth pointing out. So, to summarize I believe it's a matter of degrees. Anyone can point out a small contradiction based on a maximalist notion of a specific ideal, and that should not discredit a person's arguments out of hand. But, when a person consistently acts in a way that directly contradicts what they claim to value, or they propose policy positions that are antithetical to the larger goal that they claim to want, then it is appropriate to use irony or hypocrisy as an argument. And, if someone does this often enough, then they should not be surprised when people stop taking what they say seriously. even if, in a vacuum those people might agree with it. TL DR: Who makes the argument matters just as much, if not more, then the argument being made. it's night not always be right, but that's just how people operate.

[mehatch]

Your realpolitik and pragmatic view of human behavior is compelling, but i think in a way it misses the point im making. Irony/hypocrasy are relevant in establishing trust and charater, and anticipating future actions of a person, but when asking 'is this particular policy idea or argument against a law, an argument that works?'. I would have no objection to Gore flying to Davos, but in his argument for action, my critique would be of some aspects of his argument itself...i.e. yes humans have caused some global climate change, yes the IPCC post and the consensus of the scientific community are pretty much true...but his failure to address the cost vs. benefit of cap-and-trade etc., those investments might be better spent and do far more good fixing mundane but huge, and cheap-to solve problems like [Bjorn Lomborg](http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities?language=en) argues. So in his last steps of 'what we *should* do, in there, the logic doesn't check out because the arguments fails in it's due-dilligence in terms of global priorities. I can get there and know nothing of Al Gore, it's all in the argument itself, if properly audited. edit: a quotation mark

[Theduckisback]

I can see the argument you're making with regard to cap and trade. And I applaud you for knowing quite a bit more than I do about it. So what you're saying is that simple irony is an intellectually lazy way to say someone or some group is wrong, without knowing why they're wrong, which is really far more important. Correct?

[mehatch]

I wish i had put it as succinctly myself, yes that's exactly it with one caveat, that irony can be accomplished by great efforts on the part of a writer to find it and word it just right...so I think i wouldn't say it's lazy every time, though roughly speaking, yes on many occasions IMHO the lazy would apply.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> CMV: Irony and hypocrasy aren't relevant to the argument...any argument. [END-CITE]Two counterpoints against your main point: 1. Appealing to irony doesn't necessarily have to be criticism against the other's argument. E.g. to dismiss the argument from an alcoholic that one shouldn't binge-drink because you've seen them do it themselves, would indeed be fallacious. Instead, one could fully accept their argument, while also criticizing them for not acting in accordance with it (i.e. if they continue to binge-drink,) which would then be valid criticism. 2. A debate can be against an expert or authority in a field (e.g. neurology, history etc.) where we ourselves are not in a position to fully understand the validity of their evidence or the truth of their supporting reasons during the debate. If the authority then does or says things outside of the debate that directly contradict a claim they are making in the debate against us, we should rightly distrust the validity of that claim.

[mehatch]

Very well put, but in #1, yes in a debate 'is Bob an alcoholic', non-accordance with sobriety would be relevant information. But the Irony of his statement not to binge-drink I don't think has real, substantive argumentative bearing on the truth of his claim that the other guy would be better off if he didn't binge drink. for #2, my note#1 above (i need to fix the numbering now i realize, but the 1st #1) addresses that i'm not speaking to the expertise and trust-earned-authority of an expert, I freely admit i find certain writers to be very reliable (ex: Steven Pinker) and though he provides citations for everything in his books, i don't feel the need to check them after getting into the 5th book of his im about to, whereas other sources I find more dubious, and in those cases, if i hear claims from them that appear dubious, then I might be compelled to do a little basic fact checking. But if the dubious source and the trusted authority both made the same arguments, either would stand or fall on it's own construction and premises, irony itself in the end wouldn'y apply to whether the argument being made is solid or not unto itself.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> But the Irony of his statement not to binge-drink I don't think has real, substantive argumentative bearing on the truth of his claim that the other guy would be better off if he didn't binge drink. [END-CITE]I'm not saying that his behavior has any bearing on *his* claim. Pointing out the irony is however, valid criticism to his continuing behavior of binge-drinking. The criticism is effectively a new argument (against his binge-drinking), and distinct from the claim he made. Your CMV says that irony is not relevant to *any* argument, but I think it is in this case. [STA-CITE]> if i hear claims from them that appear dubious, then I might be compelled to do a little basic fact checking. [END-CITE]I'm specifically talking about debates where you can't check the facts yourself. Say you've come to generally trust someone like Stephen Pinker as an authority, and he makes a claim about something that you can't check, at least not during that debate. Yet you remember that yesterday, he said something during a radio interview, which makes it obvious that he doesn't really believe the claim he just made in the debate against you. I think in that instance, the apparent hypocrisy in his words becomes very relevant to the argument, and would justify not accepting his claim in that debate.

[mehatch]

[STA-CITE]> Your CMV says that irony is not relevant to any argument, but I think it is in this case. [END-CITE]Youre right on this point, i actually [awarded a delta](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2v0u7q/cmv_irony_and_hypocrasy_arent_relevant_to_the/codj8gp) further up to someone who pointed that out. Im actually prettty regretting of my word choice in the title at this point. So with that clarification, I mean to when we're crating and studying arguments of serious, political type issues like prioritizing global warming vs. cancer research, or topics like abortion or the national budget. etc. So ya, i def see how it's a new separate argument about Bob's life personally, and could see how such a thing might be effective given the more limited time and resources involved in the problems of everyday individuals versus the big classsic issues.

[ralph-j]

And my second objection? You replied (3 messages up) that arguments will always stand or fall on their own merit, but there are situations where you simply can't determine this, which would make any hypocrisy in the words of your opponent directly relevant to the argument and the claim they're making.

[mehatch]

Ahh, my mistake. OK so let's say I'm of the belief that morality comes from fear of god (a straw man of most christians, but roll w me on this). Now I'm listening to Steven pinker say on one day in a lecture "I can make moral choices". So far so good. Now lets say the next day on the radio i hear him say "I don't, nor have i for decades, beleived in god". Then in my mind i would initially find that to be hypocritical since, surely if he lacks a beleif in god, ha cent fear god, so he can't claim to be moral. So it is my lack of understanding that steven pink thinks morality comes from evolution and culture and whatnot, but lacking that knowledge, and assuming my premises, then I'd find him hypocritical. SO this is what i mean by appearance of hypocrasy may illuminate one's own mis-assumptions about reality. So it's not a true paradox, it was just a false premise. [i go into more depth in a CMV on paradoxes here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o7rct/cmv_there_are_no_paradoxes_only_false_premises/). So in a situation where we're lacking knowledge, like, how can a particle 'be in two places at once'. ....this isn't a paradox, but the paradox isn't necessarily informative, but more of a siignal flare that there might be a bad premise somewhere...but that's not actually actionable onto the argument and it's components itself, which until such a bad premise is found, or all premises are shown to be sound, and my own premises are flawed, we can just put on the 'i don't know' shelf for further examination. I hope that makes sense?

[ralph-j]

Let's pick a more straight-forward example, to get away from ideological positions. Let's say you're debating the foremost authority in the field of poisonous plants. As part of his argument he claims (falling back on his authority status) that consuming *any* amount of plant X will lead to an immediate death. Yet the day before, you've heard him admit to (or even saw him) taking (inhaling/ingesting/snuffing, whatever) a small amount of said plant in order to reach a different mental state. His apparent hypocrisy is directly relevant to the argument at hand, and you would be right to dismiss his claim, at least during the course of that debate.

[mehatch]

I think what contributed to the argument in this case isn't the irony, but the dishonesty. He claimed [x] was true when in fact it wasn't. The 'extra' hypocrisy or irony bits are still just the pixie dust of frivolous brain-importance-ing like the optical illusions. I think.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> He claimed [x] was true when in fact it wasn't. [END-CITE]Hypocrisy is more than just saying something that happens to not be true. It's intentionally pretending to believe something to be true (or false) to further your argument, while your actions show that you actually don't have this belief. Establishing that your opponent is hypocritical in the above case, is what gives you a justified reason to distrust any further claims that he makes based on his authority status, and thus his hypocrisy is directly relevant.

[mehatch]

If the key variable here substaintively is trust, then maybe im missing something here, but is'nt the relevant information the incorrectness, rather than the hypocrisy? I tihnk theres two key things we should probably parse out on this just for our clarification's sake: 4 possible situations 1. Bob beleives [x] and acts consistently with [x] 2. Bob believes [x] and behaves inconsistently with [x] 3. Bob claims to beleive [x] and behaves consistently with [x] so we beleive bob's claims about his own beleif in [x] 4. Bob claims to beleive [x] and behaves inconsistently with [x] so we don't beleive bob's claim about his own beleif in [x] Then we can do another 4 like this, but replave 'behaves' with 'makes statements' and we've got the flipside, differentiating claims and actions. Which of these would you say is the most relevant to your point in this case?

[A_Soporific]

It's not absurd or outlandish to think that politicians might state positions that they do not personally support for any number of valid reasons. However, separating the actual motivations from stated ones is important to make decisions. For example: A Congressman pushes environmental legislation of impressive size and scope that places significant burdens on new commercial and industrial construction to include solar panels, water catchment systems, and utilize a new kind of cement in new projects. That Congressman states publically that this is because he feels that global warming is a very serious problem that needs addressing now, no matter the cost. Personally, the Congressman in question has made no effort to reduce his personal carbon footprint, and in fact has recently made purchasing decisions that increase his personal environmental impact for the sake of speed or an more exhilarating driving experience. Moreover, the new cement in question, despite being heralded as particularly green, hasn't been shown to be better for the environment when studied scientifically. Given that the Congressman's actions and stated aim do not align, it would be prudent to examine alternative explanations for the Congressman's actions. Having a clear understanding of what the Congressman really wants and how he intends to achieve it is important to see if you should support the thing. In this example it turns out that the Congressman's district is home to companies that produce solar panels, pipes used in water catchment systems, and the producers of that specific new form of cement. Therefore we can conclude that the Congressman's real intent is to support businesses (and therefore employment, standard of living, and prestige) of his district. We should then critically examine if the specific wording and methodology align with our (environmental) interests or not. If they generally do, then we can give it a pass and support the proposal. If they generally benefit his district but does nothing or harms the environment then we should oppose the proposal despite the fact that it is nominally supposed be in our best interests. Irony and Hypocrisy are important because they reveal cases of mismatched rhetoric and intent. Not all instances of hypocrisy are bad, but they all warrant a second look just to make sure that they still make sense.

[mehatch]

I've been making this clarification in a number of responses, I agree with what you're saying, but my point isn't to the probable future actions of the speaker, but rather, unto itself, does the argument the congressman makes 'check out' when audited for the evidence of the premises, the proper construction of the syllogisms, etc. etc. So, yes, we can use charater as a shortcut to finding flaws in arguments, as 'red flags' but the ultimate reasons arguments work or dont work, lie in the argument itself, regardless of author.

[A_Soporific]

Who said anything about character? I certainly didn't. Anyone in the public sphere will craft their comments to better serve their agenda. This doesn't make them bad people or even necessarily liars, just that the context of a comment now contains a larger portion of the important information compared to a normal conversation where parties aren't operating in an official capacity. Irony is all about subverted expectations. If X then Y sorts of stuff. Irony occurs when that line of reasoning doesn't follow. There can be any number of reasons for this to be the case. Usually it marks a shift in strategy or an atypical position. This highlights something that in important to know because it is not a continuation of the existing theory, regardless of how well it "checks out". Hypocrisy isn't about *future* actions. It's about current and past actions. It's not hypocritical to change your mind and change your behavior to align with a new set of priorities. It definitely is hypocritical to *claim* to have a new set of priorities but fail to adjust your behavior accordingly. The important information here is to establish why you want people to believe that you now adhere to that new set of priorities. It isn't uncommon for that reason to be "I want people to vote for me and saying these things that I don't necessarily mean will help make that happen. Other times there is an actual thrust (economic development in my original example) that might not be as popular or might be politically risky cloaked as something that is more popular (environmentalism in that example). This doesn't make the politician even necessarily unethical (as long as he honestly believes that this would be environmentally friendly as well as be advantageous to his district). People should mean what they say and say what they mean, but that often times isn't desirable or even a good idea. So, well meaning and honest individuals sometimes play up secondary impacts as their reason for doing things if by focusing on the thing beside the point they improve the odds for achieving their aims. That isn't the problem. The problem is when someone who is *already unethical* uses this for problematic purposes. Long story short Irony and Hypocrisy both highlight something important, either an unexpected change or a mismatch between words and actions. Neither are a referendum on the character of the individual, but indicate that people who want to play things right need to take some time to unpack the truth of the matter in order to avoid serious missteps.

[mehatch]

[STA-CITE]> Who said anything about character? [END-CITE]Was using charachter to address the personal aspects of the congressperson which one might use to make predictions about their future behavior. [STA-CITE]>I certainly didn't. [END-CITE]Ya, that was me [STA-CITE]> Anyone in the public sphere will craft their comments to better serve their agenda. This doesn't make them bad people or even necessarily liars, just that the context of a comment now contains a larger portion of the important information compared to a normal conversation where parties aren't operating in an official capacity. Irony is all about subverted expectations. If X then Y sorts of stuff. Irony occurs when that line of reasoning doesn't follow. There can be any number of reasons for this to be the case. Usually it marks a shift in strategy or an atypical position. This highlights something that in important to know because it is not a continuation of the existing theory, regardless of how well it "checks out". [END-CITE]By this do you mean, it's informative to the voters of the true motives behind a policy-position change, or the like? [STA-CITE]>Hypocrisy isn't about future actions. It's about current and past actions. It's not hypocritical to change your mind and change your behavior to align with a new set of priorities. It definitely is hypocritical to claim to have a new set of priorities but fail to adjust your behavior accordingly. The important information here is to establish why you want people to believe that you now adhere to that new set of priorities. It isn't uncommon for that reason to be "I want people to vote for me and saying these things that I don't necessarily mean will help make that happen. Other times there is an actual thrust (economic development in my original example) that might not be as popular or might be politically risky cloaked as something that is more popular (environmentalism in that example). [END-CITE]I think we're pretty much in agreement on the above. [STA-CITE]>This doesn't make the politician even necessarily unethical (as long as he honestly believes that this would be environmentally friendly as well as be advantageous to his district). [END-CITE]OK so far [STA-CITE]>People should mean what they say and say what they mean, but that often times isn't desirable or even a good idea. [END-CITE]I concur that there are situations where telling the truth is the less moral act. [STA-CITE]> So, well meaning and honest individuals sometimes play up secondary impacts as their reason for doing things if by focusing on the thing beside the point they improve the odds for achieving their aims. That isn't the problem. The problem is when someone who is already unethical uses this for problematic purposes. [END-CITE]Yes this is a political problem I also see in existence. [STA-CITE]>Long story short Irony and Hypocrisy both highlight something important, either an unexpected change or a mismatch between words and actions. Neither are a referendum on the character of the individual, but indicate that people who want to play things right need to take some time to unpack the truth of the matter in order to avoid serious missteps. [END-CITE]This sounds like good wisdom about politics, and I'm pretty much with you. Only thing here is that my main point is that the discussion of major, serious political topics like malaria and abortion and minimum wage can be seriously muddled by appeals to irony and hypocrasy on the 'other side' while they really don't have any bearing on what IMHO would be the most effective way for voters to weigh their positions on certain controversial topics of large impact. the 'irony' of particular individuals or institutions actions just aren't relevant to the arguments for and against these topics. The capabilities of an institution, or the characteristics of an individual have direct relevant impact insofar as the feasability of aproject or the trutworthyness of a person...but not to the actual core issue itself, and the arguments on those issues. i think. I feel im stepping onto grey territory here a bit though...the ice might get thin under my feet here...hard to day...lets keep going!

[A_Soporific]

When you talk about abortion, minimum wage, education, and global warming stuff and get to people discussing hypocrisy and irony there is a big problem. It's really quite simple. The mismatch is between the *expected* result and the *observed* result. Thus, we can conclude when the *expected* results are fundamentally flawed by people not understanding the views of the other side then they get a sense of irony. They are being clued into the fact that *something doesn't make sense here*. When you don't understand what the real goals of a person is then you cannot accurately predict what they will do. If you believe that someone's goals are very different from what they actually are then your predictions will be very wrong. That cognitive dissonance is trying to tell them to evaluate something, but they are too busy trying to evaluate what the other side is doing that they never bothered to evaluate their original expectations to see if they made any sense. In short, if you see a lot of irony and hypocrisy in a rival that others do not see then your own biases have blinded you to the reality of the situation... and those things are trying (and failing) to clue you in.

[mehatch]

I think I agree with everything you're saying here....which leads me to beleive i may be missing an underlying point?

[A_Soporific]

The underlying point is the Irony and Hypocrisy is *ALWAYS* a valuable message. People just sometimes don't get the right message out of it. It's not that it forces entrenchment, quite the opposite it forces us to evolve our views. We just don't always evolve the right views. After all going from "Jews are greedy" to "Jews have been taking control of positions of power to get more money" isn't helpful when the real way to resolve the issue is getting to the bottom of why you're so focused on Jews to begin with. These concepts and working through them are absolutely essential to both figuring out our own positions and figuring out how to impact the views of others. They are among the most glaring signposts we have. The fact that people who are already entrenched iterate from stereotype to a different stereotype doesn't diminish the fact that the process works.

[mehatch]

Anything it always valuable if people get the right message out of it. I think another way to put it is that if im genuinely trying to figure out which side of an issue is right, pointing out irony to me on one side or the other doesn't substaintively inform me in terms of a rigorous investigation into the strengths of the attendant arguments themselves. They may actually distract me or emotionally undermine what i think is an objective and rational conscious analysis. Like, if i was a martian (im totally not btw, don't trust the rumors) who wasn't susceptible to the powers of the wit of ironic juxtaposition & the like, i'd be thinking "why on earth is this 'irony stuff' part of the discussion? it's totally wasting time while all these other humans here are trying to not die all the time. what a shame..." It's like watering plants with brawndo.

[A_Soporific]

They get *A* message, it's just not always the right one. It's not about you all the time. Sometimes it's about them, or a different group of listeners. Sometimes the objective and rational discussion isn't there simply because there isn't enough information available to the public or the final decisions simply have not been made. We need to form new expectations and make plans for things long before we have all the facts. A number of things are inherently subjective and based entirely on the values of the actors, but these values are locked away in only one person's head so we can't know what they *really* are but rather construct a model based entirely upon what see ourselves and hear from others. A talking head speaking about irony when speaking about the values of someone else is really telling you that the model that this person has been using is wrong, and it's up for us to figure out *why* that talking head was wrong and if we should disregard his commentary as a result. Sometimes people have set themselves up as the voice of a group of people. Being informed about politics is expensive and the payout is dubious. So a lot of people are willing to outsource their political opinion or adopt reductionist views to simplify the problem. This means that they might be wrong in their assumptions and lack the tools required to really get under the hood of their own politics, but understanding where they are coming from is still important for those of us who are more into politics, simply because the ability to predict them is immensely valuable when it comes to seeing how certain announcements would play. It reveals information, just not always useful information or information about the subject at hand. I would agree that sometimes people talking about irony and hypocrisy is irrelevant to your purposes. That doesn't mean that we should walk away from the concept, just that we need to cast a wider set of sources to better triangulate the real source of the problems.

[DHCKris]

Not any argument. If your argument was "people who smoke shouldn't be trusted," and you smoked, why should I trust you? Your CMV only applies to arguments based on fact, not opinion. If I said, "the Beatles are the only band worth listening to" and I've never heard the Beatles before, obviously my argument sucks

[mehatch]

If all i knew was that they had never heard the beatles, the anti-beatle may nonetheless make a compelling argument if they had read and sythesized every scrap of beatles related critique available in the lexicon into a coherent white paper or something. In which case the argument itself would still stand of fall on it's own merits. Where you are right, and I'm wrong, is that in my title i didn't follow [my own advice](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2swp9d/meta_some_advice_for_posters_to_cmv/) in writing the title. You're opening of: [STA-CITE]>Not any argument [END-CITE]I think therefore deserves one of these ∆ In retrospect, I would have wished i had titled it someing more like "CMV: Irony and hipocracy work great to influence opinions, but IMHO they're red herrings which distract from, and can even be counter to, legitimate arguments of serious topics." The cringe is strong with me today.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DHCKris. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DHCKris)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[bgaesop]

Pointing out hypocrisy is making the case that the argument must not be as convincing as the speaker claims it is (or is too difficult to implement, or isn't being made sincerely), otherwise the speaker would be convinced by it and act on it.

[beer_demon]

But we are not talking about convincing but making a logical argument. If a smoker says you shouldn't smoke because there is evidence it's bad for you, the argument is sound. Maybe your opinion on the person wielding it drops a bit, but that shouldn't touch the argument.

[Clockworkfrog]

That smoker would not be a hypocrite.

[mehatch]

I'd love to hear more on your thoughts about this. Do you mean there's no hypocrasy within the argument the smoker is making itself? Or that the smoker themselves aren't hypocritical?

[Clockworkfrog]

Both I guess, not practising a policy/behaviour/whatever that you claim is good/argue for is not hypocrasy. A hypocrite would be someone who smokes denouncing smoking saying "any health conscious person like myself knows the risks of smoking and so does not". Hypocrisy involves lying, not just a failure to "practice what one preaches". Although that is just a technical definition that does not really match how it is often used so I probably am just being pedantic.

[mehatch]

hmm, ya so like 'liberal' or 'good' or 'life' words can apply to different definitions, essentially they might as well have totally different spellings but since that luxury isn't avail, I'll clarify that the 'hypocracy' im applying here is like the examples in the post text, so my take wouldn't encompass the definition of hypocracy to which lying is a necessary component. [STA-CITE]>"any health conscious person like myself knows the risks of smoking and so does not". [END-CITE]OK so this is a really interesting counterexample to my thesis, but i think the entanglement here is that in this case her argument is weak because there could very well be a person who's an exception to that rule, but she may very well know the risks and not have the will-power to overcome her addiction simultaneously, without effecting the truth or falsity of her argument. The argument itself still stands alone on whether or not it's true in a public-policy, serious-issue sense...and in that perspective, her hypocracy doesn't inform the question of whether pregnant mothers smoking creates a high risk of harm to the fetus/embryo/etc.

[MemeticParadigm]

Logical arguments are both crafted and interpreted by people with imperfect knowledge. Someone can make an argument about a complex issue that seems *very* logically sound, but some seemingly small element of it is actually only superficially logical, and without that element the whole argument unravels. The problem is that, if the person crafting the argument is more clever than the one interpreting it, and is either consciously or unconsciously arguing in such a way as to draw attention away from the crack in their logic, then the person interpreting it may never pick up on it. No one can claim to *know* what they *don't know* - so we are all vulnerable to accepting arguments that are based on imperfect logic without seeing the imperfections. Understanding the motivations and histories of those who are presenting such arguments, then, allows us to more effectively scrutinize their arguments, because we can guess at the areas they would most likely want us to gloss over if they have a motivation for getting us to reach a certain conclusion, and then pay extra careful attention to those areas.

[mehatch]

I agree that knowledge of an arguer may be a helpful shortcut in finding the weak spots...but applying a rhetorical audit to the argument does the same job without that knowledge, so *within the argument itself* the weakness is weak for it's own sake, and remains a weakness whether or not the speaker may have some personal aspect that would lead to it...so I'm not saying personality or character may lead to a weakness appearing in the argument, it's not the reason why the part is broken. So the ford pinto had gas tank problems not because of the failures of engineers, but because of the flaw in the gas tank itself. The thing which makes the argument (or the car in this case) more dangerous is the physical aspect of the thing, not the lines on the blueprints.

[MemeticParadigm]

While this is true in the theoretical limit of a situation where we have unlimited time and resources to perform a *completely* comprehensive rhetorical audit, or where the argument itself is so trivially simple that such a complete audit is reasonably feasible - in practice, where we are dealing with highly complex arguments and limited time and resources, such comprehensive audits are often not feasible. It's like searching for buried treasure by digging holes randomly all over an island until you find treasure - there might well be treasure *somewhere*, but you'll probably give up and decide there isn't *well* before you dig up the whole island. Using information about the person making the argument is like using a metal detector or a map - technically, it can't change whether or not there is buried treasure but, in practice, it has a *huge* impact on whether you actually find the treasure, or decide that it doesn't exist. If you *decide* that an argument is sound, because you can't find the buried flaw, then that argument impacts your views and actions as if the flaw didn't exist. The argument doesn't change, but its *impact* does, and isn't that the consequence that matters?

[mehatch]

The scope of my argument is that regarding the big serious political issues, where there's plenty of mental horsepower and decades gone by to audit the arguments for fallacies and bad premises and whatnot. We don't need a manhattan project (ok i actually kind of think we do, but im not going there lol) to handle these. The desert island in this case would be overrun by diggers to the degree we might as well stil to digging up the whole attoll and finishing the audit. On smaller, say, interpersonal things, I can see how the efficacy of pragmatic witticisms could have more usefullness, but my regrettable title word choices aside [see my delta give on that here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2v0u7q/cmv_irony_and_hypocrasy_arent_relevant_to_the/codj8gp) the spirit of what im getting at is that on medium to large topics irony is a red herring and often counterproductive influnce that musses up the clarity of what might be a simpler question without all that mess.

[mehatch]

While I concur that hypocrasy may be informative as to the character or intent of the speaker, note#1 in my post text i think addresses this, but i'll try to clarify in different words: when i'm saying "argument" i mean the evidence, syllogisms, conclusions, etc. themelves which compose the argument are valid or not regardless of the character of the speaker/writer/etc. One example might be a student in a class assigned to argue form the point of view opposite their own in a debate class. We may know the speaker doesn't agree with his speech, we can still apply the same critical analysis to the argument made in his case, or in the case of someone who beleives it.

[aardvarkious]

A lot of arguments are complex and beyond the understanding of people. Global warming is a great example. A very, very, very small proportion of the population actually has enough knowledge to make a fully informed decision about what claims about global warming are true. I certainly don't have the scientific background to understand it thoroughly. It is impossible for me to look at an argument about it and say "yes, the science is correct here." All I can do is decide if the person telling me is credible: if I can trust them to be telling me truthfully and accurately what is going on. And hypocrisy plays into the trustworthiness of a person. No, at a scientific forum it wouldn't be valid for a scientist to say to another scientist "you drive a hummer so your claims about global warming being real and bad must be wrong." The two individuals have the ability and are in a context where they can and should rebut the actual argument. A popular debate is different. You (probably) don't actually have the background to comprehensively understand all aspects of global warming. I certainly don't. If we are debating it, we aren't really having a scientific discussion. We are putting forth arguments from others and saying why the person we are arguing based on is right. In that case, it is totally valid to point to hypocrisy. It isn't fair for me to say "Al Gore's jet scientifically proves that global warming is false." It is fair for me to say "I don't think we should trust all of Al Gore's claims because he obviously doesn't trust them himself given all the greenhouse emissions he creates."

[Bowbreaker]

Seeing how you always write it as either "hypocracy" or "hypocrasy" I'll assume that you don't know the actual spelling and will be happy about a TIL experience. It is spelled "hypocrisy". G/

[mehatch]

I accidentally the sutocorrect i think, but as long as ya know what i mean, guess it doesn't really matter all that much either way. Appreciate the heads up tho :)

[Bowbreaker]

[STA-CITE]>I accidentally the sutocorrect i think [END-CITE]Accidentally turned it off or accidentally installed a monstrously mutated one? ... I don't know if you're trolling me or if you genuinely have declared orthography as completely meaningless in your personal life philosophy.

[mehatch]

*furiously googles orthography* if im apply to a job, or in some other formal situation, ya im prob gonna use all the standard AE spellings. But beyond that, meh, as long as people understand my meaning, it's not all that important to me. I know there are those out there that might judge me for it, but my interest in their determinations about me is inverselevy porportional to how much those judgements are based on my spelling. edit: oh man, re-reading this actually kind of hurt my face...that's much higher than my usual misspelling counts. ok on a gut level i gotta say that paragraph is a little nasty.

[Bowbreaker]

Oh I am a complete G/ It pretty much hurts my eyes already seeing the word "I" not capitalized. Funny thing is that I recently saw [this CMV](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2w7yjh/cmv_i_feel_perfectly_fine_judging_people_who_use/) from someone who seems to be taking it harder than me. But in the end that is our problem more so than yours.