Trump was born with seven silver spoons in his mouth. He’s never had to worry about money, or problems he himself didn’t generate, in his entire existence.
To him, “fair” just means getting everything he wants despite his many idiotic decisions.
He uses the word “unfair” exactly the same way a toddler would.
reminds me of a discussion I had on Reddit, they said that houtties blocking traffic to/from Israel was inhumane, as some cargo included food and medicine…
but he had absolutely no comment on Israel’s decades long blockade on Gaza that was causing a mass starvation.
I really hope those redditors stay there
Reddit is a cesspit of Zionists
got banned a few times for supporting Palestine.
Same. Fuck Reddit and fuck Zionism.
It gets better:
Kharg island, that place we bombed, to soften up for a Marine invasion?
Not even visible in that image.
Because its further up north, practically all the way up the Gulf, to Iraq.
So… we’re gonna… do an ambibious invasion… that requires the amphib landers… to go through the Strait of Hormuz…
Which is the thing that we currently cannot secure to the point of being able to guarantee safe passage through.
…
It is such a ludicrously stupid plan that if it were anyone but Trump and Hegseth in charge, I would say it is a laughably obvious false attack / psyop diversion.
But, they are in charge, so… it might essentially be an intentional Gallipoli, to serve as a rallying cry, after a bunch of Marines get killed.
They’ll bully countries into letting them cross over from the other side.
Let us use your country to launch attacks or we’ll cripple you economically.
We might stage the parts of the 82nd Airborne in … Kuwait?
Apparently a good deal of them have been moving out, lately.
… And use the MEUs somewhere else?
Invade ‘Baluchistan’?
I dunno, seems like a bad idea, to do an airborne assault, when Iran seems to be capable of hitting F35s, which are signifcantly harder to spot than a C-130.
But the MEUs… you’d still have to sail the ships up through the strait.
You’re not airlift an amphib pocket carrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Boxer_(LHD-4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tripoli_(LHA-7)
They basically have a big door in the back that can open and do a controlled partial flooding of an infernal dock, that the actual amphib assault IFVs and/or hovercraft launch out of.
We are way beyond the point where it makes sense to call them out on hypocrisy.
Oh wait I’m like the tenth person with this comment. 🤡
People like Trump base their whole morality on the idea that it’s only okay when they do it. Rules for thee and not for me.
I shouldn’t have to explain why it’s morally wrong to think that way but I will anyway. The categorical imperative. If you can’t logically will it as a universal rule, you shouldn’t do it. It’s hypocrisy and only works if the world literally revolves around you. You should always remember that from the perspective of the next person, you’re nobody, you’re some random fuck. If another random fuck isn’t allowed to do it, you have no right to do it either. Who the fuck are you? Self-centered morality is completely illogical. If you don’t want others to do it to you, don’t do it to others. If you murder people, you’re saying you’re okay with living in a world where people can murder and that means you can be murdered. Unless you’re so stupidly self-centered you think it’s okay to follow completely different rules than everyone else in the world.
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.
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.
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.
It’s a distinctly American view.
speak for yourself
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess I should also say I totally understand that you might convert some people with a hypocrisy argument. But… Although it may be idealistic of me, I’d much rather make converts out of people through actually true lines of reasoning rather than ones that are merely compelling.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Fair points all around.
Thank God someone finally pointed out the hypocrisy of MAGA.
I think they’re beyond hypocrisy.
They are at war with truth, reality, and civility. These things are only important if they are currently working in their favor. Acting in bad faith seems to be their default. All that matters is that they get their way. The ends always justify the means unless it looks like something might hinder their ability to get their way in the future… and they are usually confident that they’ll find a workaround later and do that thing anyway.
Is there even a word for such brazen, naked duplicity?
Is there even a word for such brazen, naked duplicity?
Fascism.
Why doesn’t Cuba just build a canal through Panama?
Bully logic
Yes. If you haven’t been paying attention, this has always how conservatives operate.
Who is saying this is unfair? People are really fighting ghosts here
Now you’re thinking with American Exceptionalism!
We just need to rename the Gulf of Oman to the Gulf of America. Problem solved.
All gulfs are America now!
Aka all your gulfs belong to us.
Havent sufficuently polluted it for the name to count.
America is the world police and that means everything they do is legal.
So the US embargo against Cuba is evil. But I think it is actually legal, according to international law. Because it is not a “blockade”, but instead just sanctioning the shit out of anybody who sells oil to Cuba. Which is evil, but legal under international law.
Again, legal is not the same as ethical.
Legal or not in relation to international law and the US is an academic distinction. Laws don’t apply.
The parent used the word “legal”. Hence my reply.
That is the reason European countries do not block Russian oil exports. There are sanctions and if there is any chance of stoping a ship in line with international law is being used. However it is not a full blockade.
What the US is doing to Cuba is not a “blockade” either, in the dictionary definition. The US is just sanctioning the shit out of anybody who sells oil to Cuba. Which is evil, but legal under international law.
No the US is taking ships sailing oil to Cuba. It is not just sanctions.
Incorrect I think. There was that one Greek ship, but I think the US just threatened it with sanctions, not boarded it. So the threat of legal action, not the threat of force.
Wikipedia has a long list of sources for US seizures of oil tankers sailing to Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_oil_blockade_during_Operation_Southern_Spear#Interdiction_activity
I am not sure about legal as it is causing civilian death. It is a grey area and in violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. Of course no one is really enforcing these against the US sooo…
Possibly. But at least it is a grey area, not obviously illegal. Unlike e.g. Iran shooting random third party civilian ships in an international shipping lane, which is unambiguously illegal.
