It's not a contradiction in the slightest. It's possible to disagree with a belief/norm system while still respecting those that adhere to it as reasonable moral entities. This is the foundation of Enlightenment pluralism: you can coexist peacefully with those that have different worldviews, managing the behavior of each group only when it affects others (eg, you can pray to whomever you want, but you can't burn witches at the stake). But if they don't adhere to their own belief system when inconvenient, then absolute normative judgments about their behavior become appropriate (like the one you're making in the quote below).
> you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over.
Honestly, it feels like you're projecting here a little. Seeing a demand for consistency as hypocrisy only makes sense if moral consistency isn't a term in your moral calculus.
Given this, perhaps an example that's coded in the opposite direction politically will make it clearer. Imagine a critic of legacy admissions in prestigious universities that pay lip service to meritocracy and equal opportunity. Now imagine that critic getting even more incensed when a university decides to reverse their usual racial preferences and refuses to admit black legacy candidates. Would this critic be a hypocrite? Does it make any sense to say, "it's a contradiction to complain about legacy admissions and also complain about avoiding specific legacy admissions"?
Obviously not. They set the rules, and they're refusing to play by them. This is a different, and stronger, complaint than simply not liking the stated rules.
> you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over.
Honestly, it feels like you're projecting here a little. Seeing a demand for consistency as hypocrisy only makes sense if moral consistency isn't a term in your moral calculus.
Given this, perhaps an example that's coded in the opposite direction politically will make it clearer. Imagine a critic of legacy admissions in prestigious universities that pay lip service to meritocracy and equal opportunity. Now imagine that critic getting even more incensed when a university decides to reverse their usual racial preferences and refuses to admit black legacy candidates. Would this critic be a hypocrite? Does it make any sense to say, "it's a contradiction to complain about legacy admissions and also complain about avoiding specific legacy admissions"?
Obviously not. They set the rules, and they're refusing to play by them. This is a different, and stronger, complaint than simply not liking the stated rules.