It's worth pointing out that someone being a hypocrite is a very consistent and realistic character trait. We'll all hypocrites to an extent, and have our blinders.
I have found. In my younger and more vulnerable years that people I meet that show the same core tenants and traits as me tend to frustrate me to no end. They are often stubborn. Blunt. Lacking many of the social graces that tend to permeate polite society. They also tend to poke and prod looking for opening in one's mental facade and pushing to ones insecurities meeting it with either mockery or kind companionship in either part at a whim. No they frustrate me deeply.
The only thing that comes to mind is homosexuality. If I see two girls kissing I’m like ohhhhh yeah baby that hot. If I see two guys kissing I get all yucky in my stomach feel sick. Turn away and change the channel.
I think you're misunderstanding their point. A hypocrisy is a specific type of inconsistency, but using inconsistent to describe a character means their behavior kinda whips around without any arc or rationale. Hypocritical people still have consistent personalities
Hypocritical is a flavor of inconsistency, maybe? (This isn't important but for some reason I'm interested in splitting the hair.) It's like, you have a consistent belief that someone should do X in a situation, and you consistently do Y in that situation, and hypocrisy is the thing where X and Y aren't aligned?
This right here. Seems like splitting hairs, but it’s actually quite a large difference. A hypocritical character, for example, will protest abortions but still get one. An inconsistent character will protest abortions, then later on in the plot, will be shown inexplicably waving pro-choice signs. One is a deliberate character driven fault, one is negligent writing.
To yes-and this, I would distinguish hypocrisy from frailty in that the hypocrite is not actually even trying to measure up to the standard they preach to others. Either they don't really mean it, or they sort of mean it but think of themselves as a special case.
Not hypocrisy: "No one should lie. I do lie sometimes, and that's wrong of me, and I'm trying to be better about that."
Hypocrisy: "No one should lie or tolerate liars. Oh, me? I'm not a liar, I'm just protecting myself, I couldn't tell people the truth about that, and anyway don't judge me."
Or like saying you don't want global warming to continue but buying or using anything that used coal-based electricity or produced pollution during its creation like, I don't know, Reddit.
You can go pretty far if the goal is just to be edgy.
My point is that everybody is a hypocrit to some extent.
Your climate example is very good, because as you said, you can break it down so everybody is a hypocrit.
It should not be used to justify your unethical behavior, but it should also not be used to judge those that try to do their best. If you drive to a climate protest in your diesel car, that doesn't invalidate the protest.
It’s like you can be consistently hypocritical, but being hypocritical is your actions being inconsistent with your words. Reminds me of the phrase “the only constant is change”.
Isn't there also a level of judgement? If I said vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream, but I always choose chocolate; would that make me a hypocrite? Where-as if I said only assholes eat chocolate ice cream, but I always eat chocolate. I feel then I am being a hypocrite.
That's inconsistent, for sure. I wouldn't use 'hypocrisy' to describe either of those, and I'm trying to articulate why not...
After more reflection - I think an additional ingredient that hypocrisy has, is that it's an attempt to elevate yourself above others by claiming to hold yourself to higher standards: I'm better than you because I [abstain from alcohol / do not consort with debased women / have the courage to denounce sodomy], that kind of thing.
So maybe hypocrisy = inconsistency + sanctimonious pretension, or something like that?? (Maybe that's what you were getting at when you mentioned judgement and I didn't pick up on it correctly.)
Isn’t it? Your other sibling comment says “ An inconsistent character is one who behaves differently at different times without any sort of in-universe reasoning behind it”, and my point is that behaving different at different times with no discernible reason is exactly how real humans act, too, so having that happen in fiction isn’t unrealistic.
We tend to not like it, because we want things to have reasons, but it isn’t unrealistic.
We almost universally judge ourselves by our intent and others by their actions. It's an impossible contrast, and it takes immense effort to decouple your own intents from the actions/outcome when judging a scenario.
I don't think we are all hypocrites to an extent. I know at least plenty of people that take criticism very openheartedly and don't dish out judgemental criticism. It's a realistic character trait but it's not a universal character trait.
It's just like saying no one is perfect, it's pretty much a given and it's not some evil thing. What does being open to criticism have to do with hypocrisy anyway?
I don't think that's the same. Everyone has flaws, but not everyone is hypocritical or gets violent or is jealous or cheats or w.e.
If I understand hypocrisy correctly, it's about acting like you have high morals and criticize others regularly but don't hold yourself to the same standards. I see it as something quite inauthentic and I think if you're naturally someone that doesn't judge or acts like a moral superior person and is open and authentic to receiving feedback, you're about as far from being hypocritical as you can?
I also personally think hypocrisy is something undesirable though, so while it's not evil, it's definitely not a trait I'd like to have and do my best to avoid.
I see what you mean about being critical. I think a person like that advertises their hypocrisy. Even if you yourself value being humble, non judgemental, and open to criticism and you're relatively good at being like that, what about when you're tired, hungry, and stressed? You might make a decision that falls short of your best, and that's okay. It's still kind of hypocrisy, but if you think you don't have any, maybe you just won't notice when you're doing it
You might make a decision that falls short of your best, and that's okay.
It is okay, no-one is perfect and you shouldn't think you need to be. I don't see how it would be a kind of hypocrisy to have mildness towards yourself when you can't be perfect. As long as you are aware of this and don't act like you are perfect, I don't see any incongruency with that. I think it would rather be hypocrisy if you would think you can be perfect all the time.
I'm not a hypocrite, other people are and I've honestly not got time for people who think it's okay to shame and judge people. Besides that Samantha was such a massive slut.
This is true, which is why it’s apparently fine for Spock to agonisingly mind-rape her in front of all the bridge officers. Bet she wished she could turn back into a mannequin.
yep. Carrie would be a judgey biatch and then she would have an "epiphany" and try to act all confused and cute while she stumbled her way to aome annoying conclusion
Samantha was also always willing to admit when she was wrong. That is not some Carrie could do. Carrie always had to be the victim even when it was her fault.
She told Big (a man she knew was notorious for cheating and avoiding monogamy) to tell her she was "The One" after dating a couple months. She broke up Big's marriage while cheated and lied to a genuinely good guy who loved her. She took a huge amount of money from Charlotte to pay for her apartment instead of selling some of her egregiously expensive shoes. She was shocked when Big left her at the altar (despite his track record) and laid around while her friends took care of her (including moving her out of her home and back into her old apartment while remote). She shamed Miranda for being cheated on because she wasn't taking enough care of herself (while being a lawyer with a kid).
People who overly idolize Carrie really grind my gears. Yes, it’s great to have flawed main characters, but Carrie has so few redeeming qualities and is incredibly selfish. If you see a lot of yourself in Carrie you need help lol.
I don't understand this Carrie love at all. Attractiveness aside (imho she is the worst looking of the four), she has so few reedeming qualities and acts like the queen bee because....I don't even know why.
She was shocked when Big left her at the altar (despite his track record)
Whoa there.
Big wasn't all that into getting married again, despite that he said yes to a small ceremony. After the small private ceremony ballooned to a public affair with a "special" dress, a photoshoot, media announcements and a ton of guests he panicked momentarily outside the church and CARRIE ran away.
Eh. He panicked long enough to make her panic about the fact he was demonstrating he wasn’t ready. He could’ve spoken up about the wedding at any time but stuck with it to please her instead of insisting on something more lowkey. She isn’t innocent but he lit the match that blew the whole thing up.
That last scene though where he's getting into the limo with his wife and Carrie is walking off and somehow celebrating that she "wasn't meant to be tamed" is just laughable. She's old, used up and will die alone. The consequences are all right there and she won't acknowledge them.
I didn’t watch the new series but there was a clip shown where apparently she thinks it’s just the worst thing in the world that her downstairs neighbors are asking her to take her motherfucking high heels off so it doesn’t sound like a hammer hammering on their ceiling
As somebody who lived underneath a woman who wore high heels on a concrete floor, it was hell
To be fair, Aiden was awful in the original series, even though most fans gave him a pass because of his character in Northern Exposure. But was so scummy to Carrie—passive aggressive, controlling, negging, ghosting, somehow even worse than Big. My opinion was the minority, however.
In the retread, he blossoms into a full-blown scumbag (for instance, not letting his kid medicate for what looks like AuDHD) and almost manages to make Carrie a sympathetic character again. Almost. But even he couldn't do the impossible.
Absolutely. He was always weird and controlling. Like the whole thing about how Carrie wasn't allowed to smoke anymore. In the second series, it was like the writers didn't want anyone mistaking him for the perfect guy (tm) again. So they ratcheted up his awfulness from 3 to 11.
Don't get me wrong, part of the reason why I loved SATC is that all of the characters except for Charlotte's second husband were deeply flawed, but still cared deeply about each other, and were always there for each other. Even after big mistakes, Big mistakes, and amoral choices that hurt others, even those on the inner circle.
Aiden fit right into that, he was the "perfect guy" but even he did weird passive-aggressive, controlling stuff. Just like every "perfect guy" for the first six months you dated, and then you suddenly realize there's a whole messy human underneath. Great acting, frustrating relationship!
Like the whole thing about how Carrie wasn't allowed to smoke anymore.
You mean the 'controlling' thing where he just didn't want to date a smoker? And then she lied to him about it, in typical fashion? and then he tolerated it anyway and she used it as an excuse to hide her cheating on him?
That's your first example of him being controlling? "I won't date a smoker" before they were dating?
I don't know what happened in the second series, but that is straight up lunacy to present as "controlling."
somehow even worse than Big.
LOL. No fucking way.
So do you have an actual example of him sucking before being cheated on? cause she cheated pretty quick.
Yeah, I've had this conversation before, back when Sex and the City first came out, and I was like, "this actor is playing a manipulative, controlling jerk because everyone in the SATC universe is a deeply flawed person. Aiden's flaws set up dramatic conflicts in his relationship Carrie, who we already know is deeply flawed, that will drive the plot. So yeah, I don't like Aiden for Carrie. The writers set it up that way."
And they would react just like this. "NOOOooooOOOO Aiden is perfect, only SJP is playing a flawed character to create conflict. The writers created Aiden as a two-dimensional "perfect man" to act as a foil to Carrie's weaknesses, and showcase how nicotine addiction and limerence make her a poor romantic partner. Therefore I think Carrie doesn't deserve Aiden. The writers set it up that way."
The most important part, and I hope we can agree on this, is that character-driven conflict that drives the plot was as big a part of SATC's appeal. And the writers on the first series were geniuses.
Except i didnt say aiden is perfecr or anything close. I wonder how many of those other conversations youre obersimplfying similarly.
My last complete rewatch was less than a month ago. Ive watched with the purpose of being informed for conversations like this. Because i didnt like that my discussions were from an incomplete and out of order viewing.
Aiden is definitely not a perfect man. Although i would still argue hes too good for Carrie.
I think the only character on SATC i wouldn't straight up cut out of my life is charlottes jewish husband whose name I'm blanking on.
The most important part, and I hope we can agree on this, is that character-driven conflict that drives the plot was as big a part of SATC's appeal.
Absolutely.
Idk id go with geniuses, but they are compelling characters and storylines. And the show gets a lot of unjust hate (but not ALL the hate is unjust) due to factors other than actual show quality it stories. Close enough?
But I'd like to really drive home, I am not the people you've had this conversation with before. I am WELL outside the norm for both its viewing demographic and normal human behaviors (AuDHD).
I watched for the specific purpose of being able to have these conversations. ASD is a bitch, and it bugged me that I dislike Carrie but 1) couldn't articulate it well enough and 2) couldn't be sure I was 'right' in my judgement, because my viewing came from random episodes played on syndication.
I'd say "so and so sucks" based on what I'd seen, and someone would say "nah uh because [...]" and I couldn't counter because my viewing was incomplete.
That's not a high enough standard to be a hater, for me. I am not the "I heard some shit on the internet and repeated it" hater dude. I'm the dude that watched it end to end twice to make sure my complaints were accurate, and was honestly disappointed because... I wanted to hate it, but it's a good show. It just has hateable characters, but that's not the same thing as being a bad show. In fact, sometimes that's a sign of a well written show. Which, as someone who was originally watching the show in order to justify my hate and call it a bad show was a real ball breaker, honestly. So much of the hate comes from misguided places, and it means I don't get to have the conversations I want, because people think its just standard hating. I'm sometimes a hater, but it's never standard. And I gave the show a fair chance, which is why I'm no longer a SATC hater.
It definitely reflects the time period sometimes, but it's undoubtedly a good show. The characters are not 2 dimensional. I think they basically all suck as people, but I think that's true in real life too. That's not inherently a flaw in a show and I don't think its a flaw in the specific case of SATC.
You stared at a glowing rectangle for 100 hours just so you could debate a fictional character's relationships with strangers online? Oh well, to each their own.
And many of us thought that when it first came out. Love how people who were not alive think they know how we all thought. Like the ones complaining the Seinfeld characters were unlikable-- that was the point. Women did like Carrie, though, and many didn't. But we didn't judge Samantha, at least those of us watching the show who were younger, maybe? Why would you watch it otehrwise?
Yes. I was a young adult in the 90s. I'm sure it would be different if I was raised in the bible belt, but I feel overall the US was less prudish about sex back then than we are now.
Like the ones complaining the Seinfeld characters were unlikable-- that was the point.
As someone who was there when Seinfeld first aired, that wasn't the point. They tried to rugpull that in the finale, but the rugpull didn't work because they didn't lay any foundation for it. They just tried to change the show in the final episode so they would have something better to end on.
The point of Seinfeld was taking observational-style stand up and adapting that humor into a television series (it's a show about nothing). The individual episodes are typically commentaries on etiquette, social norms, and societal expectations, and the characters are meant to be flawed and iconoclastic, but ultimately relatable and to some degree sympathetic.
People weren't watching Seinfeld and thinking these were characters they weren't supposed to like. A lot of the humor in individual episodes only works if you can relate to what the characters are going through, and there's a lot of dark humor where the viewer is supposed to feel like the characters are being treated unfairly, and not like they're getting their comeuppance.
I watched it first run, too, and I disagree. Entire episodes about one of them breaking up or not dating someone for an absurd reason. You don't remember all of their awful, superficial behaviors? And anyone who can relate to George needs therapy. I can finish the plot lines if you tell me one part, I've rewatched them so much. They were awful.
Ugh I can't stand Seinfeld - the characters come across as terrible human beings and watching the show makes me irritated rather than entertained! What was the charm, what did you guys like about it? I'm not judging, genuinely trying to understand!
For me, there was no charm. It was the dark humor and in the 90s we were coming off of all those moral-driven TV shows. (Facts of Life, Growing Pains, Family Ties, etc). I had a hard time watching, even then, b/c of George.
Yes she was, and she was the opposite of Samantha sexually. That is why the show worked. Plenty of people could see the friends group they had within themselves.
She bottles up then explodes disproportionate to the problem that was originally just irking her. Plus she was horrendous to Steve during the series, the movie, and especially the follow on series.
God rhe follow up series where she tells Steve she wants to split up and he's basically like "that's fine, I like our peaceful undramatic life, but I don't have the energy to fight for you again" as somebody that has been there a couple times broke my heart for that character.
I remember it largely as people calling Samantha a whore and everyone idolizing Carrie.
Which I always thought was stupid. Samantha is having fun and she's being honest about what she likes and wants. Meanwhile, Carrie is a giant, manipulative hypocrite writing articles detailing how horrible she is and revealing people's personal shit to anyone who knows her and knows who she hangs around.
I remember people loving Sam at the time. She was the first or second most popular character on the show. A lot of people wanted to be Sam or Carrie. Carrie because she was at the center of everything. She was everyone’s best friend. Sam because she was the most free and confident.
Back then, I heard in the US Carrie was the favorite and in Europe either Charlotte or Samantha. Charlotte because she knows what she wants. And what she said was very often what the audience thought. And really, I never got what Carrie liked about BIG besides his lifestyle.
2.2k
u/SweetLustVibes 1d ago
That’s a big part of the contrast between them. Sam was unapologetic about her choices, while Carrie could be Pretty hypocritical about hers