-1

Follow up to the original question.

I followed Ted Wrigley's template when asking this question: two sentences describing the behavior followed by "What factors caused this difference in approach?" and the result is the same, the question is closed as a push question.

I would like to understand the difference.

Edit: the question has been reopened ...

3
  • Does this answer your question? Is asking about hypocritical behaviour off topic?
    – Joe W
    Commented Apr 27, 2022 at 12:38
  • I am voting to close this as a duplicate question as I see no reason why it is different.
    – Joe W
    Commented Apr 27, 2022 at 12:38
  • 1
    I would say that question still is bad as it is asking about two different types of behavior one being violent action through an invasion and the other being non violent action through words and warnings.
    – Joe W
    Commented Apr 27, 2022 at 18:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

I obviously can't speak for every user who downvoted or voted to close, but from what I saw in the comments (and my own interpretation) the problem isn't that you asked about hypocritical behavior, but that the behavior you described wasn't hypocritical.

In your question, you said was Australia doing two things that you believed was hypocritical:

  • Australia condemned and sanctioned Russia in response to their invasion of Ukraine
  • Australia's Minister for Defence said Australia should be prepared for war as a response to China's expanding influence

The two behaviors you described are essentially "Russia shouldn't have invaded Ukraine" and "we should be prepared for war with China". These two policies didn't really seem like contradictory or hypocritical to me, and judging by some of the comments other users felt the same way.

However, as the other meta post you linked says asking about hypocritical behaviors/policies isn't off-topic by default, and I can see a couple ways you could ask about potential hypocrisy in Australia's behavior towards China/Russia

  • If Australia condemned/sanctioned Russia for preparing for a potential war with NATO, you could ask why Australia would prepare for a potential war with China in the same way
  • If Australia invades the Solomon Islands to stop the deal with China (or if they did a comparable military operation in the past), then you can ask why they condemned/sanctioned Russia for doing the same in Ukraine
7
  • I think it needs to be strongly remembered that we are talking about one country taking action by invading and another country talking about a red line and war but no actual invasion of the islands in question.
    – Joe W
    Commented Apr 29, 2022 at 17:20
  • I made no assertion in the question that the behavior was hypocritical (try Ctrl + F for that phrase). Your answer here also seems more like an answer to the linked question than to this one. But I don't have anything more to say about both questions; they seem to have run their course.
    – Allure
    Commented Apr 30, 2022 at 14:13
  • It's an SE question and the purpose of a question is to facilitate answer posting. There's no "should" or "shouldn't" in the question. "In your question, you said was Australia doing two things that you believed was hypocritical:..." No, that simply did not happen. It's not there. The question is non-accusatory and impartial and allows for any residual premise to be addressed in answers. We should not presume to know the thoughts and feelings of other users. "You seem to think that..." type assertions should be avoided everywhere in Stack Exchange. Stick to the actual words written.
    – uhoh
    Commented Apr 30, 2022 at 20:04
  • @uhoh: Since this meta post was titled "Is asking about hypocritical behaviour off topic?" and references another meta post titled "Is asking about hypocritical behaviour off topic?", I'll admit that I jumped to the conclusion that they thought the question they linked was asking about hypocritical behavior, and they wanted to know if it was off-topic.
    – Giter
    Commented May 1, 2022 at 1:13
  • Well there are several separate issues here that relate to the use of "about" in the title of this meta question. What others might feel that a question is about is not necessarily at all what a question actually asks. Look again at the question in the main site: "Why does A not tolerate B if they think C should tolerate D?...What factors (other than self-interest) explain this difference in approach?" There is no premise of presence nor absence of hypocrisy in that question, likewise here
    – uhoh
    Commented May 1, 2022 at 1:40
  • So while some might see the greater issue discussed in meta as whether we are worried about the on-topic-ness of questions about hypocritical behavior, others only see a question about inconsistency. Nonetheless the word "hypocritical" became associated with the hand-wringing due to the choice of the previous meta question's title, and this meta question has simply indicated the connection to it by repeating its title and appending "(#2)". (An SE question is not its title, it's the entire post, the title sometimes only hints at what the question post is truly "about")
    – uhoh
    Commented May 1, 2022 at 1:42
  • Note that this answer to the previous meta question also invoke the "seem to think" technique to project intent where none existed: "The way @uhoh asked his question:... Seems to make that equivalence presumption, pushing the reader towards an assumption of hypocrisy." We shouldn't answer titles, we shouldn't project, presume, or mind-read. My goodness, it seems I'm suddenly seeing originalism in a whole new light! :-)
    – uhoh
    Commented May 1, 2022 at 1:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .