Words never cease to amaze me, not only in their meanings, but in the dangers they pose when their semantics vary over time, most often from mis- or abuse, intentional or otherwise.
My purpose here is to demonstrate how hypocrisy is the basis of all crime, yet the original meaning of the term makes references other than that which I intent. To wit, Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1785 defines hypocrisy as "dissimulation with regard to the religious or moral character." Dissimulation, in turn, is "the act of dissembling; hypocrisy." Do note the circular definition. Dissemble: "to play the hypocrite; to use false professions; the wheedle." Note again the circularity.
The Oxford etymological dictionary defines hypocrisy thusly:
c. 1200, ipocrisie, "the sin of pretending to virtue or goodness," from Old French ypocrisie, from Late Latin hypocrisis "hypocrisy," also "an imitation of a person's speech and gestures," from Attic Greek hypokrisis "acting on the stage; pretense," metaphorically, "hypocrisy," from hypokrinesthai "play a part, pretend," also "answer," from hypo- "under" (see hypo-) + middle voice of krinein "to sift, decide" (from PIE root *krei- "to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish"). The sense evolution in Attic Greek is from "separate gradually" to "answer" to "answer a fellow actor on stage" to "play a part." The h-was restored in English 16c."
All of the several other sources I consulted provided no improvement on these results, a "hypocrite" being one whose true opinions or virtues, do not conform with those professed publicly or privately, particularly with respect to religious or moral issues. This original sense of "hypocrite" has little semantic relation to what one can only conclude is a modern mangling of the original, the relationship between the two being apparent, albeit in a somewhat tortuously stretched, tenuously thin, and overly-subtle way.
The sense to which I refer is that of the "double-standard", a term that somehow does not hold the same oomph as "hypocrisy", not to mention that its first known usage dates back only to 1872, a mere 151 years from the date of this writing. It was my hope to discover a far more ancient term that would convey the sense of a double standard with a singular and unambiguous force, yet I have been unable to identify such a word that met the requirement in a powerfully satisfactory way, which I find perplexing and somewhat disturbing. How, I ask, would a man of the tenth century have described that which many today is known as the double standard? I can't find it. The various thesauri list terms such as:
biasesfavoritism
partisanship
unfairness
favoritism
nonobjectivity
inequity
discrimination
prejudice
favor
illiberality
tendentiousness
inequality
tilts
bigotry
injustice
one-sidedness
prepossession
preconceptions
unjustness
None of these words carry the double-standard meaning or implication, save in the most obliquely indirect senses, many of them being either elements of a double-standard, or an effect or result thereof.
Therefore, I shall coin the term "diprot", from the Greek διπλά πρότυπα (diplá prótypa, literally "double standard"). Its form shall be as follow:
diprot, n. A double-standard.
"Governmental monopoly on force is the most heinous of all diprots."
diprotisy, n. Instance where a double-standard is present. Synonymous with the same, mistaken and modern sense of "hypocrisy", as distinguished from the proper sense of not being as one presents himself.
"The diprotisy of his vote on the bill left him untrusted by voters."
diprotor, n. 1 A hypocrite in the sense of one who judges by, or employs a double standard that either releases an individual from a stricture that is to apply to others, or confers a right or privilege denied to others, in all cases where no just, logically valid, or truthful basis exists for so doing.
"Commonly known as The Great Diprotor, the judge was hated throughout the land as a tyrant for her uneven treatment of defendants for the same crimes."
diprotorous, diprotical adj. 1 Of or relating to a condition, action, or thing having the quality of a double standard.
"The diprotorous government edict lead to violent revolution."
diprotical, adj. 1 Of, or relating to a double standard.
"Stanley's resentment arose from his mother's diprotical treatment of himself and his younger brother."
diprotorine, diprotoresque, adj. 1 Having a quality or character suspiciously reminiscent of a double standard.
"The diprotoresque specter of the proposed legislation lead to violent protest in the streets of the city."
"His diprotorine acts eventually left him with little trust from others."
diprotorize v. To imbue with or lend the character of an invalid double standard.
"If you diprotorize the Law, you will be despised by everyone in town."
diprocate, diprocation v. To act as a diprotor, the act of one who diprocates.
"His diprocation on punishment for Congressmen's crimes backfired on him wildly."
I find it somewhat surprising that a term dedicated to the double-standard sense of "hypocrisy" is not to be found, since the concept is central to many issues that relate to our innate freedoms, not to mention all other manner of human transactions. Whether this new and dedicated term catches on, only time will tell. Being dedicated to the concept of double standards, unlike hypocrisy, for which that sense is a relatively modern bending of a word, "diprotisy" is dedicated to that notion in its origin and derivation, and therefore cannot be reasonably taken as relating to anything else.
Getting to our ultimate point, the purpose here is to make clear that diprotisy is a foundational characteristic common to all crime. It is safe to assume that no robbers wish to be robbed. The likelihood of rapists wanting to be raped, is vanishingly small, as would be the case for murderers being murdered. Child molesters are most likely to resent being molested, likely were, and by that means became molesters themselves.
The criminal, in the commission of his crime is saying "I can do to you, but you cannot do to me". Is this not the very core of so-called "government" operations? Is it not the very essence of the master/slave relationship? All such relationships and events employ invalid double standards, and as such are in themselves despicable, prima facie. In the case of crimes, they are plainly felonious.
For the sake of clarity and completeness it must be pointed out that there are valid double standards. A fine example of this would be that of parent and child, where the former may admonish the latter with "do as I say, not as I do." The parent may consume alcoholic beverages and smoke cigarettes, yet the child is validly forbidden from such activity for any of a number of self-evidently just reasons. Judging different things based on standards appropriate to each, those standards are perforce going to be different where such differences are relevant to the judging. One does not, for example, judge the flavor quality of an apple using the standards used for similar judging of oranges.
In issues of sameness, however, such as those of the common innate freedoms of all human beings and the rights that derive therefrom, the standards of measurement and judgement must be mostly and perforce identical across all lines of consideration. To do otherwise, most particularly where disparagement of the rights of an individual or group thereof is the result, constitutes a felony of the highest order, meriting severe consequences.
There is no case of crime where diprocation has not served as an elemental, overarching, and dominating factor. In such senses, diprotisy stands as an utter evil. To act as a diprotor is an utmost cause for shame to be avoided at nearly any cost. To be labeled as a diprotor should be viewed as grand mockery, a grave accusation, and as such one should use the word with due care in consideration and discretion.
May you find this discourse of some practical value, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.
