Being ridiculed as a hypocrite for trying to make a small change

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.

Michael Cox wrote:I believe Paul posted recently about recycling. How what we need is 90% of people doing it imperfectly, rather than aiming for perfection.

Dale Hodgins wrote:Joseph has produced tons and tons of organically grown vegetables. But he has probably messed up a few times and didn't do things exactly the way that someone who has grown a few vegetables, would like it done.

Neal Stephenson, "Diamond Age"
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others--after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?"

...

"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour--you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

...

"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception--he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."

"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code." "Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved--the missteps we make along the way--are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power." All three men were quiet for a few moments, chewing mouthfuls of beer or smoke, pondering the matter.

Dale Hodgins wrote:
I had zero experience when I decided to buy a beachcomb boat and pull logs.

Timothy Markus wrote:

Dale Hodgins wrote:
I had zero experience when I decided to buy a beachcomb boat and pull logs.

I didn't know that about you.  Now I know where I've seen you before.  I used to be a big fan!

Timothy Markus wrote:Dale, I don't know how anyone who knows you even a little, could doubt your ability to do anything.  You're like the Red Green of Canada.

Timothy Markus wrote:Dale, I don't know how anyone who knows you even a little, could doubt your ability to do anything.  You're like the Red Green of Canada.