There are hundreds of millions or billions of us, though, depending on how broad a brush you use. Any given issue or value is going to have someone, in fact quite a lot of someones, on every conceivable side of it. Even if you limit your scope to the people who have a substantial voice in the culture.
Yeah, but it's not a good look when the influence-weighted average of all those people applies double standards for different groups in similar situations. I mean, even when you take just a single person, they're probably going to have a couple conflicting feelings towards any one topic. And yet, if the emergent result of that internal conflict doesn't produce some level of self-consistency in resulting opinions and actions, then something's not quite right.
Like… the entire idea of words like "society", "culture", "zeitgeist", etc. is that they imply a greater level of organization, shared values and ability to act as though one autonomous entity or whatever, than if you merely took "hundreds of millions or billions of" people and dumped them all in one place.
A society or zeitgeist can absolutely have 'hypocrisy'. If it can't, then it's not a culture, just a mass of hominids.
Plus, though it's hard to track, there's probably some degree of hypocrisy aggregated from an individual level too, where people who took one side before are taking the other side now.
Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: "Piracy reduction can be a source of Windows revenue growth." [1]
Current Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: "Well, we’ve always had freemium. Sometimes our freemium was called piracy." [2]
[1]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/only-consumers-pressure-can-cu...
[2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/20/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcri...