To be fair, there's a natural tension between principle and context.
If you lean 100% into context, then principle becomes moot. If the context of why you kill someone rules all, then "Don't kill people" becomes a meaningless principle. Joe was a rapist and child molester, so murdering him made the world a better place. Dave extorted 100s of people out of their money, so killing him made the world a better place. Etc. In other words, "It's okay if he deserves it."
Principle requires you disregard some context, and only in the most extreme cases does the context override the principle. It doesn't matter that that person is a blight on the world, you still can't kill him except in self-defense.
But if you lean 100% into principle and disregard context, then you also start seeing unjust results. "You didn't pay your child support; you can't see your kid anymore." "But I was locked in a foreign prison for crimes I didn't commit." "Doesn't matter."
So there's this tension between principle and context that will require you to disregard some context, but not all context. So it's natural for people to have different ideas about how those two opposing ideas play out in a given scenario.
For example, some people (marrec) think the context of saying bad things in public is enough to override the principle of non-violence. Other people (me) do not. It doesn't make either one of us a hypocrite, it just means I'm right and marrec's wrong.
