[082349872349872]

Would you agree that a US Senator doubling down[1] that 'having slavery was a necessary evil[2] in order to get rid of it[3]' is correct usage of cognitive dissonance? How does it differ from the incorrect usage?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53550882

[2] I agree with him that it had been a necessary evil to form the original union. I disagree both that formation of that union was necessary, and that slave states joined the union with the intention of abolition.

[3] Luckily, like this senator, the confederate states and contemporary writers said why they seceded. Deepfakes are not an issue when people are willing to go "on the record" with their intent and state of mind.

====

As to "different values", I guess I can come up with some for the examples given above:

Exxon - We need oil profit now to fund later development of our green acquisitions

Wall St - Our arbitrages make the system more efficient for everyone else

the MIL complex - Our products only kill and maim baddies. Besides, we build them so we don't have to use them.

the gambling industry - If we were outlawed only criminals (and uncovered derivatives traders?) would gamble. Besides, people have a sure loss when they pay for other forms of entertainment. And we pay for cultural projects legislators don't want in their budgets!

big tobacco - There is controversy over long term costs, but in the short term smoking clearly demonstrates human mastery over fire. (besides, how are workers supposed to bond, and pace themselves, without the smoke break?)

However, the only clearly non-dissonant one I can come up with is "anything people pay me to do is by definition good."

[brmgb]

> the MIL complex - Our products only kill and maim baddies. Besides, we build them so we don't have to use them.

Approximately no one thinks that in the military industrial complex. People are not dumb. They know what they are building. It's actually one of the least hypocritical industry I worked in.

I left because I was feeling uneasy about the foreign countries we were selling to and don't believe in the foreign policy of our last few governments. Still I am not loosing sleep about my contribution to my country military relevance.

[082349872349872]

Thanks. I'll gladly edit if you can provide me with a better justification? (to me, "contributing to my country's military relevance" would fall under "we build them so we don't have to use them," but I'm obviously the wrong person to be writing these.)

[brmgb]

> we build them so we don't have to use them

No, we build them so that we are credible when we threaten, can riposte if we are attacked, are less tempting as a bullying target and win when we wage wars (which we sadly still very much do even if it's mostly in support of allied countries nowadays).

I mean, I am far from fully Clausewitzian but force remains part of the way international relationships work.

[082349872349872]

I think we agree[1] more than you think we do.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1946/1946-h/1946-h.htm#chap0...

> "But a measuring of strength may be effected in cases where the opposing sides are very unequal by a mere comparative estimate. In such cases no fighting will take place, and the weaker will immediately give way.

> If the object of a combat is not always the destruction of the enemy’s forces therein engaged—and if its object can often be attained as well without the combat taking place at all, by merely making a resolve to fight, and by the circumstances to which this resolution gives rise—then that explains how a whole campaign may be carried on with great activity without the actual combat playing any notable part in it."

(the problem here is that this strategy is unstable, as not everyone can follow it at the same time, something demonstrated twice during the prior century. Renaissance italians were fond of manoeuvre over direct combat, for which our more bloodthirsty age faults them.)

[1] compare Alexander in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23963679

[skinnymuch]

The OP gave a simplistic answer about baddies. In general though this does appear to be something of thinking of your side as pretty damn good in a moral sense. A few things I can think of that don’t feel like they align with the motives you gave:

- the US is close to near full support of course what Israel does. We have never had any issues supplying them with aid of all kinds. There doesn’t appear to be nuance there. The practice won’t stop. It exemplifies many of the general practices and uses of the military complex.

I have a hard time believing there isn’t some level of hypocrisy or dissonance to claim moral reasons like not being bullied, but on board with most of Israel’s actions.

Yemen is an easy case of how wrong things are. It is consistent with the frequency of the US not doing things for defensive purposes.

The first 3 points vs the waging war point appear To be conflicting and troublesome themselves.

[theelous3]

> even if it's mostly in support of allied countries nowadays

Does "nowadays" include only the 1991 defense of Israel? Because that's the last time the US was in a war that was in defence of its allies, and there's basically a blank history before that.