Consistent inconsistency

I’m not sure why we’re all so quick to judge one another. I don’t know why we expect everyone else to be consistent in their views when we seldom are ourselves. In fact, I’m not sure why we expect others to see their inconsistencies as inconsistencies. Chances are they’re actually consistent, but using a different set of criteria than we do.

But instead of seeking to understand one another we’re much rather condemn one another, seeing out inconsistencies to score points with “our team” rather than really initiate any change in the world. After all, if you really care about women’s rights, why aren’t you concerned about how women are treated in the Middle East? If you care about unborn children, why don’t you care about children living in poverty? If you care so much about immigrants, why aren’t you opening your home to some? If you care so much about unemployment among blacks, why are you so eager to let illegal immigrants into the country to further dilute wages?

There are many fallacies in such thinking. But perhaps the most insidious is this: Just because they care about A doesn’t mean they don’t care about B. How do we know? Can we really be so sure that pro-lifers aren’t also giving great amounts of money to help the poor? How do we know American feminists aren’t supporting international agencies pressing for women’s rights in the Middle East? How do we know enough about anyone we tend to criticize to know they are worthy of that criticism?

We don’t.

Another fallacy is the assumption that because someone supports A means there aren’t good and just reasons to not openly support B as well. Let’s face it, there are good reasons, even if it’s only “I only have so much time in my day and can’t support every cause that is worthy of my attention.” There isn’t even enough time and money to support all the groups that want our support within just one single cause. My family supports the humane treatment of animals, but if we gave money to every group that asks for our money, devoted time to every group that wants our time, and lived up to the standards of every group that wants us to change our behavior we would be homeless and bent in knots trying to please everyone. It just isn’t possible, and we all have to draw a line somewhere.

Another, less obvious problem with such thinking is the belief that the person criticizing is doing anything substantial about either A or B. Criticizing those on the “other side” in a social media post is not the same as actually doing something yourself. Are you pro-immigration and feel that those who are not are terrible people? That’s fine, but does your Facebook post really help those immigrants hoping for a chance to come to America? Would it help as much as, say, writing your senator? Probably not, considering I’m not aware of any opportunities for you and I to vote on the issue before November, when we indirectly do so by choosing our next president.

I’m also dubious that such arguments really make any positive difference. Does anyone know of anyone whose mind was changed by one of these over-simplified, cheap-shot “gotcha” posts? Could a meme-pic ever contain sufficient substantive argument to override someone’s opinions that have been formed over years? Not likely. Meme-pics and most social media posts lack any real substance, and are more likely to offend the very people it is designed to “convince” by its over-simplification.

If changing hearts and minds is really our goal there are better ways to do it. Not easier, mind you, just better. Few things worthwhile are ever easy. Attacking the inconsistencies you see in others is unlikely to change hearts and minds. Chances are their beliefs are only inconsistent based on your own world-view. Attacking others on that premise is more than likely the quickest way to convince them you’re at best clueless and at worst a hypocrite. Either way they won’t be inclined to listen.