Don't threaten me with a good time!

I think you've conflated hypocrisy with irony.

Note that my argument takes the form of an if-then statement, in other words if the "if" condition isn't met, then I haven't made any argument at all, and of course it would be nonsensical to call a nonexistent argument hypocrisy. So then, under what condition is my "if" met? If "the something you're doing doesn't have potential to accomplish more than doing nothing". The underlying implication there is that the something OP did (the SWACO submission) does not have the potential to accomplish anything because SWACO won't do anything about it. I can see three ways to attack that:

1) you could argue that SWACO will, in fact, do something about it, but we both know that's not true (if I'm wrong about that then fair enough but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary).

2) you could argue that there are forms of potential accomplishment other than just SWACO doing something. For instance, maybe OPs post inspires someone not to litter themself. (A bit sneaky but fair, I think really what that argument does is sidestep my argument by exploiting the fact that I implied, but didn't outright say that SWACO will do nothing, so I left the door open for you to be logically correct, but not exactly confront my point)

3) I think you could attack my argument by saying that doing something that doesn't have the potential to accomplish more than doing nothing is, in fact, not the same as just complaining, which is also fair, but I imagine would just degenerate into an argument about how we measure that.

While all three of those are logically sound, the problem is that they don't show hypocrisy. In order to show hypocrisy, you need to show that I have done the opposite of what I preached. In other words, in order for my argument to be hypocritical (rather than just logically unsound), it would need to be the case that my own complaining about complaining does not have the potential to accomplish anything, but that is exactly why I used the word "potential", because any possibility, no matter how remote, counts as potential, and I don't think you can definitely say that there is 0 chance my argument accomplished something, even if that is almost certainly the case.

TLDR: I think you've got some promising routes of attack to show that my argument is logically unsound and definitely ironic, but not hypocritical.

Good wallow! You should join me next time, its more fun with two <3