Performative Indignation and Counterfeit Principles
Recognizing pearl clutching without taking the bait
Since the former board was voted out, supporters of the effort to foreclose on my family's home have altered their principles from "you must obey the rules" to "people aren't being nice enough to the old board."
Criticism of the prior board concerned decisions, enforcement, communication, and accountability. I was among the most outspoken, yet I never called the directors names or said they were bad people. In my posts, the only outgoing director ever identified by name was the former president, when an email screenshot was shared so people could read his own words.
Those same foreclosure supporters now characterize criticism of the board's past and current conduct as personal attacks on "volunteers." Holding a board accountable for how it exercises authority is not a personal attack on its members, and their volunteer status does not put the board's decisions beyond scrutiny.
The former board is refusing to follow the transition requirements in state law and our governing documents, which say new directors take office upon election. Instead, they insist on remaining in control until January 1. We raised the issue nearly two months before the election. They had time to prepare and chose not to follow the process.
Those same supporters demanded strict compliance from homeowners. Vague solar guideline language like "whenever possible" and "as inconspicuously as possible" became an absolute command, with foreclosure an acceptable consequence for violating subjective interpretation of vague language. But explicit legal requirements for the board's transition which carry liability risks for both the community and the directors? Those rules are flexible for the old board.
Strict compliance for homeowners, flexibility for the board. Kindness for those pursuing foreclosure, little concern for the family facing it.
Here's what I see happening: the former board's anti-solar supporters wanted our panels denied and didn't want me to "get away with it." They supported the board pursuing foreclosure against our home. Then the neighborhood voted that board out and elected a team committed to reforming the HOA and giving every homeowner the same opportunity to generate solar energy under clear, consistent rules. They didn't get the outcome they wanted, and that's what they're upset about.
The argument shifted from strict compliance to civility because their allegiance was fixed to punishing my family, while their supposed principles were disposable. When enforcing the rules served their preferred outcome, compliance was everything. Now that the board they support is refusing to follow explicit requirements, they want to discuss whether its critics are being sufficiently kind. Their frustration with losing is being repackaged as a principled objection to how people are speaking.
Hypocrisy is failing to live up to principles you claim to hold. Disingenuous pearl clutching is performing moral outrage over principles you aren't sincerely defending. Here, performative indignation over "unkindness" redirects attention from the board's conduct to the people criticizing it.
To recognize the tactic, watch what happens when a claimed principle becomes inconvenient for the people invoking it. Do they demand the same compliance and extend the same kindness to the other side? When the standard repeatedly changes to protect the same people, their allegiance is more consistent than their principles. Don't let the claimed concern distract from the conduct they're excusing.
Keep the response focused on the facts, and don't waste time chasing approval from disingenuous pearl clutchers. Repeatedly defending your tone lets the diversion become the discussion.
The strongest response is to deliver on what we set out to accomplish and let the community experience the benefits firsthand: clearer rules, fair treatment, open communication, and respect for homeowners' rights. That's where our time and effort belong.