[devsda]

> As an American I will argue against my government's unilateral global adventurism all day long

I'm sure there are many Americans who would oppose this adventurism. I'm not sure whether that's because they believe its just a bad strategy to continue the status quo or because its just plainly a wrong way to treat other nations by force.

> That certainly doesn't mean that expanding the behavior is progress.

I don't mean it as progress. Its a regression but I hope there's a silver-lining at the end of all this for everyone.

[mindslight]

> I don't mean it as progress

You ascribed the label "fairest" as if the current state is closer to a desired ideal. This is a standard pattern of fascist propaganda - pointing out the longstanding normalized hypocrisy in the system in support of going backwards to where we didn't even try to live up to something better.

If you'd focused on what you see as the positive path forward, in spite of current events, then I wouldn't have written my comment.

[devsda]

In what twisted imaginary world is saying that a serial killer was fair to all his victims by being equally brutal with all of them means killing was the desired ideal. I'm not sure who proposed going backwards or what it even means.

Everyone is acknowledging the hypocrisy because it is hitting their bottom line this time.

I would like to see links to your opinions where you pointed to the "longstanding normalized hypocrisy in the systen" as a problem before the tariff nonsense.

[mindslight]

> In what twisted imaginary world is saying that a serial killer was fair

Exactly this. One doesn't use the word "fair" to begin with. Being killed is decidedly not fair, period.

> I would like to see links to your opinions where you pointed to the "longstanding normalized hypocrisy in the systen" as a problem before the tariff nonsense.

Write a script go to back through my HN comments as far as you'd like? I don't have a blog or anything.

Off the top of my head - I was against the Iraq War, against Obama's drone assassinations, against intervention in Libya, against Israel's apartheid and genocide except for maybe two weeks after Oct 7 (they burned through their credibility that fast).

The main US international military action I've ever been in support of is helping Ukraine - it seems like a just defensive war of people who earnestly want liberalization and closer ties to the western sphere of influence. But even on that subject, the covert US meddling that set that stage for that conflict is still condemnable.

On a different but related topic, I've been against the surveillance industry ("big tech") from around when the term AJAX was coined.

Is there anything else you'd like my opinion on to show I'm not new to the subject?

[devsda]

you are hung up on the usage of the word "fair" with no room for alternate interpretation but want others to let bygones be bygones because it is normalized and maintains the status quo.

That's a really convenient position to take.

[mindslight]

Not letting bygones be bygones, but rather addressing them in a constructive context - where they might even be able to be concretely addressed rather than simply used as fuel for the fire and then dumped in the dustbin of history.

Yes, that is maintaining the status quo. And yes, that is awfully convenient as an American. I'll admit those biases. But even as a critic of US foreign policy for basically my entire life, I do feel there is still something independently-valuable in the post-WWII international order where we at least tried to move beyond overt large-scale aggression.

Defining it as "west vs the rest" is too binary, even if you're coming from a place of being content to see the rest of the west get their comeuppance. Don't you think Gaza is worse off with this new more fair approach? Venezuela?

[eagle2com]

How about in a cynical sarcastic context? Do you think "fair" still has no place in it?

That's how I interpreted the original message anyway. I guess I still have hope, maybe foolishly, that people don't mean it literally.

[mindslight]

As a heavily sarcastic and often irreverent person myself, I think sarcasm translates very poorly to online communication in public forums. The main problem is the complete lack of context where you don't know where a commenter is actually coming from, so you lack the ability to interpret them making a particular statement as a deliberate absurdity.

So sure, maybe talking to friends I would find myself using the word "fair" that way as a punchline to a joke. But they'd know I'm not looking to normalize the new dynamic, rather than highlighting its perversity.

Then specifically here, OP doubled down on the argument rather than repudiating it. So I don't think it's really correct to call it sarcasm.

[devsda]

Thanks. It took 6 levels of comments to point the obvious sarcasm. May be I give too much credit to average HN'er skills at recognizing sarcasm without an explicit /s :)