Pot calling the kettle black

[Drox]

I've never really understood why this is a big deal.

For example, a fat person tells another fat person that they're fat.

People are gonna say, "how can you call them fat if you're also fat?"

But them being fat has nothing to do with the other person. It's still a perfectly valid observation. If a skinny person made the remark, there'd be no issue.

Why do we negate opinions/observations if the holder of those opinions/observations happens to be the same thing they're pointing out or criticizing? What difference does it make if what they're pointing out is 100% true?

[arleybob]

What difference does it make if what they're pointing out is 100% true?

Because (usually), if you're calling someone fat, it's meant to insult them or hurt their feelings. Even if it's not meant that way, it will end up doing just that anyway.

[Jive Talka]

I've never really understood why this is a big deal.

For example, a fat person tells another fat person that they're fat.

People are gonna say, "how can you call them fat if you're also fat?"

But them being fat has nothing to do with the other person. It's still a perfectly valid observation. If a skinny person made the remark, there'd be no issue.

Why do we negate opinions/observations if the holder of those opinions/observations happens to be the same thing they're pointing out or criticizing? What difference does it make if what they're pointing out is 100% true?

Because an insult/critique loses it's validity when both people involved share the same traits.

A crackhead calling me irresponsible doesn't carry the same weight as my boss.

There's no need for philosophical debate; "the pot calling the kettle black" couldn't be a simpler concept.

[Drox]

If a crackhead calls you irresponsible (and you are), it might be ironic/funny, but it's still true. That's what I'm getting at.

[Giomanach]

It's like the nigger calling the paki black.

[water bottle]

Well, it comes from the whole practice what you preach thing. People are more inclined to take you seriously if your words/criticisms genuinely reflect how you live your life. But yes, I do think it would be stupid for anyone to think that being X prohibits you from noticing X in other people and commenting on it as a criticism. I never liked "pot calling the kettle black" as an expression, as I have never even had a black pot or kettle so it confused me when I was a kid :o.

[Jive Talka]

I never liked "pot calling the kettle black" as an expression, as I have never even had a black pot or kettle so it confused me when I was a kid :o.

You've never been to the country.

[water bottle]

You've never been to the country.

Lol, I didn't think the colour of pots or kettles would give it away, but I guess I do live in an urban area. Medium to large cities ftw. Yeehaw :p.

[reggie_love]

Well, the criticism itself is valid, but generally it comes with an air of judgement or prescription, doesn't it?

A crackhead cannot claim superiority over a fat person in terms of responsibility or health, but offering criticism usually requires that, or at least that's how it's perceived. If I said "man you're fat" and was fat myself, it's not a big deal even though I'm being hypocritical. If I said "man you're fat, you need to stop eating, yknow for your health" I am giving you orders of a sort, and it becomes more relevant. What right do I have to tell you to do something I do the opposite of myself.

It'd be kind of like an opposite situation: telling your doctor something about how he can be healthier. Obviously you don't have the qualification to do so, and while that doesn't make you any less right, it puts you in the position of offering advice without any perceived "right" to do so. Most people don't like others to be in that position without some claim of legitimacy to their authority. Hypocrites can't have that legitimacy as readily.

I believe this whole thing (Hypocrisy/Pot calling the kettle black) is largely regarded as logically fallacious. So, I suppose you're right in that sense.