3 ms·

From the “Political Hypocrisy” Wikipedia article, which although itself is not really accurate for common usage in the present time, says: “ Political hypocrisy

From the “Political Hypocrisy” Wikipedia article, which although itself is not really accurate for common usage in the present time, says: “ Political hypocrisy or hypocrisy in policy refers to any discrepancy between what a political party claims and the practices the party is trying to hide. “ There’s nothing that’s attempted to be hidden in strategic speech, because the purpose is not to communicate facts (whether true or false). It’s purpose is to acquire support from the public. That’s not a secret! Yes your description of the situation in Eastern Europe is accurate, although I would remove the emotive language and note that there are multiple parties responsible besides USG, and USG’s purposes are more aligned with the welfare of Ukrainian citizens excluding Russian ethnic minorities than the administrators of the Russian federation.

danbruc 4y ago
I think you should not get hung up on the term of political speech. Is their a discrepancy between what standards the USA tries to hold others to and its own actions? If yes, that is something I am happy to label hypocrisy. If, for example, you insist that international law must be followed but ignore it yourself if it is inconvenient or against your interests, that is - in my book - hypocrisy and there is no political speech involved.
- simple-thoughts 4y ago
  The standard that USG holds others to is not complex- it’s “might makes right”. The areas where USG backs down from its interest are fully in line with this ideology- cases where local authorities, political groups, or competitor nation states are able to pose a credible threat to military supremacy. That’s not to say USG is morally in the wrong, all successful states operate along this principle.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    The standard that USG holds others to is not complex- it’s “might makes right”. Which is, at a fundamental level, correct - every law can be broken but the laws of physics. But nobody forces you to use your power to achieve immoral goals, so while you need power, you are still free to decide how to use it. That’s not to say USG is morally in the wrong, all successful states operate along this principle. That is wrong, success does not imply morality. But we started at hypocrisy and if your premise is might make right but you deny other countries this premise, then you are hypocritical. North Korea building nuclear weapons is just them following this premise, so instead of saying North Korea is bad, they should say we understand, they just want some of this might makes right, too. You could still oppose them, because it is in conflict with your might, but then you would at least no longer be hypocritical. And I fully understand why they don't do it, they have a much better image if they maintain the we are good, they are bad narrative, but this exactly what makes them hypocritical, hypocritical in what they do and say, not necessarily in what they actually belief.

danbruc 4y ago

I think you should not get hung up on the term of political speech. Is their a discrepancy between what standards the USA tries to hold others to and its own actions? If yes, that is something I am happy to label hypocrisy. If, for example, you insist that international law must be followed but ignore it yourself if it is inconvenient or against your interests, that is - in my book - hypocrisy and there is no political speech involved.

simple-thoughts 4y ago
The standard that USG holds others to is not complex- it’s “might makes right”. The areas where USG backs down from its interest are fully in line with this ideology- cases where local authorities, political groups, or competitor nation states are able to pose a credible threat to military supremacy. That’s not to say USG is morally in the wrong, all successful states operate along this principle.
- danbruc 4y ago
  The standard that USG holds others to is not complex- it’s “might makes right”. Which is, at a fundamental level, correct - every law can be broken but the laws of physics. But nobody forces you to use your power to achieve immoral goals, so while you need power, you are still free to decide how to use it. That’s not to say USG is morally in the wrong, all successful states operate along this principle. That is wrong, success does not imply morality. But we started at hypocrisy and if your premise is might make right but you deny other countries this premise, then you are hypocritical. North Korea building nuclear weapons is just them following this premise, so instead of saying North Korea is bad, they should say we understand, they just want some of this might makes right, too. You could still oppose them, because it is in conflict with your might, but then you would at least no longer be hypocritical. And I fully understand why they don't do it, they have a much better image if they maintain the we are good, they are bad narrative, but this exactly what makes them hypocritical, hypocritical in what they do and say, not necessarily in what they actually belief.