Mastodawn

Substance_P 1d ago

Irony level: expert.

https://lemmy.world/post/44633593

Idk why people keep thinking that pointing out this “hypocrisy” is clever. The current government is operating from an exceptionalist standpoint. Many people believe America is anointed by God, the agent of good and right. Others simply believe in the law of self-interest.

Either way, (I can feel the downvotes coming now), this isn’t really hypocritical behavior by any means. This is like criticizing a sports team: “Wait, so it’s good for YOU to get the ball in the basket, but it’s bad for THEM to get the ball in the basket?”. The people who approve of America’s behaviour do not see other countries and people as being on the same team, and while that may be stupid, it isn’t hypocritical. Imagine someone saying this about you with some instsnce of yourself being self-interested.

“Oh, so when you get a promotion it’s a reason to party, but when that lying asshole in your department gets the promotion instead of you, now suddenly you feel upset? Hypocrite!”

That’s not hypocrisy. That’s just you believing that you deserve the promotion and believing that the other guy doesn’t. Now, if you don’t actually deserve the promotion, that still makes you wrong, but not via hypocrisy.

Its important to understand this distinction because all these “hypocrisy” call outs from the left ring so hollow even to many people on the left, and they certainly won’t wake up or bother anyone on the right, because they’re fundamentally missing the point.

The problem isn’t that America coherently pursued its interests by wanting a passage opened for it in one place, and pursues its interests by wanting a passage closed in another place… The problem is that those things are not actually in America’s interests, or that they are selfish and disregard other innocent people, etc.

This is like criticizing a sports team: “Wait, so it’s good for YOU to get the ball in the basket, but it’s bad for THEM to get the ball in the basket?”.

This is an extremely Trump-like view, that foreign policy is a zero-sum game with a winner and a loser, and the object is to win.

FlashMobOfOne 1d ago

It’s a distinctly American view. Other countries do look at making deals where the benefit is mutual.

Our foreign policy, specifically over the last 40 years, has been vulgarly in service to the Epstein Class and their business interests, and we saw this backed up in Jeff’s own emails. It was a feature of both our wars and the manner in which we wielded soft power. The only real difference here is tactics and presentation, and if Donald were willing to make nice speeches like his predecessors, people would care significantly less, I think.

That said, there is some legit hypocrisy here. In his first term, Donald did distinguish himself in disentangling the US from several foreign wars and his reticence to start others. (Most notably Syria and Afghanistan.) He also campaigned on doing so again, even beginning office by establishing a ceasefire in Gaza.

But then he needed people to stop asking questions about his likely pedophilia.

100% agree on the social media posts though. No one gives a shit about the supposed hypocrisy, on the left or the right. Hell, they didn’t call the last guy Genocide Joe for no reason.

MinnesotaGoddam 1d ago

It’s a distinctly American view.

speak for yourself

mfed1122 1d ago

Yes, and to be clear, I’m not saying that I actually hold that view. I’m just saying that that’s the view they have - and there’s nothing hypocritical about it. It’s flawed in plenty of other ways, but hypocrisy isn’t one of them.

FlashMobOfOne 1d ago

Fair points all around.

Avid Amoeba 1d ago

All true but highlighting the hypocrisy is useful in changing changeable minds. I do believe that the unchangeable mind are a large minority. I think there’s a lot of people who believe what they do because they’ve never heard anything but exceptionalist propaganda since birth.

It is more than that. The ones that control society want them to be that way, so they go along to get along. That’s the big factor.

mfed1122 1d ago

My problem with this is that I think a lot of the changeable minds that are on the fence will recognize how it isn’t really hypocritical, and so this misses the point and just makes it look like a stupid complaint. Because indeed, there isn’t hypocrisy going on here. The mentality is wrong for other reasons, but not because of hypocrisy. So when it comes to changeable minds, I feel like it’s better to put forward solid reasoning rather than merely sophistic reasoning - as the second kind is usually only useful for preaching to a choir who is willing to overlook logical flaws.

Avid Amoeba 1d ago

I understand. Can you give me an example of a true line of reasoning? Honest, good faith question, in case I learn something I can use. :D

If too much work, don’t worry about it.

squaresinger 15h ago

Hypocrisy doesn’t apply here. Unfairness does for people who understand fairness as a global standard, following the golden rule, as in “fair is if everyone gets treated equally and the same rules count for everyone”.

For those who understand “fair” as in “something is unfair if I am not getting my way”, the fairness/unfairness argument doesn’t work either. That kind of egocentric view is common among right-wing voters.

What could work for people with an egocentric world view, who can also hold a thought for longer than 10 seconds is to think of the implications. What kind of impact does an unnecessary war on America’s long-term soft power in the world? What does it do to the US-EU relationship, that used to be so important? What will it do to the US citizen who wants to put fuel in their car and heat their house? But this requires reflective and long-term thinking, so that might be a tall order for some.

For the remaining people, an argument would be that Trump betrayed them. He promised no wars and America first. Now he is spending billions of dollars blowing up school girls in a country on the other side of the planet for … no specific reasons. He is a traitor to the cause he claimed to fight for.

In the end, there is no argument that lands with everyone. You always have to figure out who the person is you are talking with. What do the words mean that they use (the meaning of politically charged terms varies wildly between political factions)? What are the emotions behind these words? What are they disappointed by?

Avid Amoeba 6h ago

Good args, no critique. I think where I see hypicrisy useful is with some part of centre and left of centre voters who do believe in the concept of fairness and who believe in the propaganda that US interventions are about helping others - e.g. freeing some people from opressive regime through oil embargo.

mfed1122 7h ago

Thanks for this really nice comment. This is the kind of interaction that makes Lemmy awesome. I am working up a longer response to this when I have time but just wanted to pop in and reply a little earlier

Avid Amoeba 6h ago

We’re trying to be excellent to each other. This social is actually ours to a large extent. 🤗

But the post talks about “fair” vs. “unfair” not “good” vs “bad”. And if you want to say an Action is fair for us but unfair for them, you would need additional rules to distinguish between the Actions in respect to the Actors. Otherwise, it would indeed be hypocrisy. (Not that it matters too much, this is not sports.)

mfed1122 1d ago

That’s a really great point. I agree that the fair versus unfair distinction does imply a universally shared rubric. However… I’m not sure if the fairness of it was actually ever asserted by the government one way or another - from what I’ve heard, they’ve only ever asserted the good or badness of it. So I still suspect that the post may be missing the real hole in the opponent’s armor and instead attacking a strawman.

squaresinger 15h ago

Remember, right-wingers use words differently. They use “unfair” the same way my toddler uses it. In this case “unfair” means “I don’t like that and I use a word that makes it sound like that’s not just my opinion”.

Fairness and mutual benefit are a specific trait of a left-wing world-view. If you accept that everyone should have the same, fair chances and that working together brings mutual benefit, that already puts you squarely into a left-wing position.

The main right-wing world view on the other hand is self-centred. “I am the person who is most important to me. If I don’t benefit, I’m out.”

This goes through all parts of left/right views and politics. On the left, people are ok with social monetary transfers, even if it might harm their bottom line, because they think it’s fair that poor people can afford to live. On the right, people are envious of people receiving benefits. On the left, people are against billionaires, because they take money from poor people to enrich themselves. On the right, people worship billionaires because they want to be like them. On the left people are for asylum, because they think it’s only fair to provide people with a safe place to live. On the right people are against asylum, because they think asylum seekers will take money from them.

Because of that, “fair” and “unfair” mean different things on the left and the right. A left-winger who has a high salary might say “It’s unfair, that I earn so much and the person who makes my food doesn’t. Let’s raise minimum wages.” A right-winger might say “It’s unfair to raise minimum wages, because the guy who makes my food could have just gone to university like me, and increasing the minimum wage means my burgers won’t be as cheap as they are now.”

Left-wingers see fairness as an universal standard, that has to be applied to everyone even to their own detriment. Right-wingers see fairness as a way for them to increase the share they are getting.

humanspiral 1d ago

This is like criticizing a sports team: “Wait, so it’s good for YOU to get the ball in the basket, but it’s bad for THEM to get the ball in the basket?

It’s different. You are agreeing to the principle of rules when you play sport. May the best team win according to the principles.

A good reason to not start a game of genocide is “what do you deserve if you lose”? Best to stay within rules made to promote civilization.

scarabic 38m ago

I struggle to imagine what you would consider hypocritical if not this. I understand your argument about exceptionalism, etc. But don’t all hypocrites think they are special? It’s no defense against the charge of hypocrisy to think so.

The fact that this time it’s been gussied up into a whole “foreign policy doctrine” really doesn’t change anything. In the end, it’s like you’re saying they aren’t hypocrites because they know they’re behaving hypocritically and they’re doing it on purpose.

Again: if that’s not hypocrisy, what is?