Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

  • JohnDClay
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But was it bad they joined? Even if it was self interested, it’s still a good thing.

    • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Obviously Nazism is evil, but the US isn’t ideologically opposed to Nazism (quite the opposite), so their rise to power is just the rise of one Nazi power at the expense of another (allowing the US as a world power emerging from WWII to massacre millions across the world). Besides, OP said intentionally good, this was incidental insofar as it aided in undoing Nazi ethnic cleaning (as well as “don’t include the times it was repairing damage it did”, as encompassed in the US inspiring Nazism).

      • JohnDClay
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I’d have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you’ve expanded them.

        • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          Name me a time when [a country] was intentionally and objectively good and don’t include times it was repairing damage it did.

          The DPRK’s support for Algerian independence under the NLF and recognition of the Algerian state as a sign of internationalist progressive policy; DPRK’s support for the national liberation struggle of the Mozambican people; the USSR’s aid to Korea in gaining independence from Japan and the PRC’s deployment of troops to wage war against the occupying U.S. imperialists in the Korean Peninsula; the USSR’s support for the Cuban struggle against U.S. imperialism; the PLA’s liberation of Tibet from feudal theocracy with the support of the toiling masses of Tibet; the USSR’s support for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas against the reactionary U.S.-backed “guerilla” Contras; these are a few examples.

          • JohnDClay
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn’t altruistic. So it isn’t fully objectively good as someone above objected.

            • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Now you’re changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn’t objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.

              • JohnDClay
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, someone above was arguing that the US joining WWII wasn’t good because it wasn’t altruistic. I was applying the same logic.

                Edit: see here

                The US was blatantly looking after its own interests rather than a genuine commitment to destroying Nazism

                • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  At what point do you cool off? You’ve been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you’ve engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you’re right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?

                  And no. The person you’re referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn’t objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There’s a distinction.

                  • JohnDClay
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this?

                    Good question. I had hoped I would give an argument that the US is not incalculably worse than authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. But y’all seem to really like them despite reality, and there are way too many of you to talk to.

                    And this isn’t good for my sleep schedule, so I’ll manually defederate by blocking all your subs. Bye, thanks for being reasonable