Trump Supporters and Putin Supporters: Judged by the Same Standards or Not?

[Debater Slayer]

That's a pretty far out claim. While both have started
wars, it ignores the reasons & agendas. A significant
difference is that Bush never intended making Iraq or
Afghanistan part of USA. Another is that while Bush
had "honesty issues", Putin's dishonesty has been
made law, with criminalization of criticism.

Bush's dishonesty served as the fuel for a long, drawn-out war that killed half a million Iraqis, launched an era of extended use of torture, and left the country in shambles for years after.

The reasons and agendas merely speak to motives; they don't make a significant enough difference when it comes to the real-world effects of Bush's and Putin's plans, which similarly destroyed their target countries and caused immense suffering.

About Ahnold....I recall your posting this before.
Do you oppose what he said in the video because of
what he's supported in the past? Or do you dismiss
what he said because of this?
Or something else? Your point isn't clear.
The video stands on its own. I find this approach to
be productive...at least as much as the advocacy of
one non-leader can be.

I oppose his being the conveyor of a message where he appears to be posing as a self-righteous messenger of peace, because his record tarnishes the message and casts a shadow on the authenticity of the larger messaging coming out of Western media and public figures. My stance on this would be different had he come out and acknowledged his mistake in supporting the Iraq War or apologized for it, but he hasn't (not that I know of, at least).

Something I've noticed is that some people in the Western world, especially the U.S., don't seem to have a solid picture of why so many people in other parts of the world are hesitant to ally themselves to them in the conflict against Russia—despite the long history of colonialism, warmongering, and bloodshed that the U.S., U.K., France, and other major Western powers have. Now that these powers need as many allies as they could get, they're reaping the fruits of their decades-long policies that have alienated potential and former allies.

When someone like Noam Chomsky brings to light why this is so and calls for less historically oblivious messaging from Western governments, he's met with criticism from those who appear to believe that anyone calling for a measure of realism and self-awareness must be a Putin apologist. This is why people like Schwarzenegger are tainting a message that, at its core, is indeed both necessary and sound: he's simply undermining the credibility thereof by sheer virtue of his own track record. This ideally shouldn't be the case (as tu quoque is still, after all, a fallacy), but public opinion doesn't always operate in an ideal manner.

About the 2016 election....
Did you find Hillary to be a good candidate...her
record in the Senate, her proffered agendas, etc?
It seems that you strongly prefer her over Trump, but
is this a reasonable position, given the her record,
& the info available about him at the time, including
his total lack of any record in office?

I found both candidates horrendous, and Hillary's record is one of warmongering, corruption, and dishonesty.

That said, I believe she would have been a better president than Trump because of the long-term effects of his SCOTUS picks and his flirting with war on multiple occasions, in addition to his dubious stances on certain civil rights issues. He's far more unpredictable than she is, and while she's morally bankrupt (in my opinion), I doubt she would have been foolish enough to get the U.S. into yet another war or directly threaten to use nukes.

 

[Debater Slayer]

His argument is persuasive even if his previous view were flawed.

Yes, but I think people with a record like his should weigh the potential effects of their public positions in light of their record, as I said in my previous post. When people in other parts of the world that have been targeted by U.S. interventionism and aggression, which Schwarzenegger and others against the Russian invasion of Ukraine supported (e.g., Bush and Obama), see someone like him broadcast his supposed peacefulness against the backdrop of what his political kin did to their countries, I believe there's a lot of potential for that to directly undermine the credibility and image of his message.

My stance on this could be different if he had come out and at least acknowledged that he was wrong about the Iraq War, but he hasn't done that, as far as I know (and I'd hope to be proven wrong on this).

 

[Debater Slayer]

After all, who hasn't had flawed views.
The OP is no exception.

Everyone has had flawed views, but only a minority have had flawed views that have contributed to large-scale death and suffering. Schwarzenegger and other supporters of the Iraq invasion fall within the latter category.

Yet we don't
dismiss him for this history...usually.

Since you say "usually," am I to assume that you also dismiss some of what I have to say based on history? In which case you should have no problem understanding why someone would do the same to any given public figure.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's a pretty abrupt change of subject.

The main idea of the thread is to draw a comparison between people's reactions to Trump supporters and Putin supporters, so the transition from talking about one to talking about the other is neither abrupt nor accidental. It's the whole point of the discussion.

I don't think that any of us really know how prevalent support for the war is in Russia. Perhaps nobody does, since many Russians probably aren't sure what they think.

I would guess that the majority support the war right now because most Russians are pretty nationalistic and will be inclined to support their country in time of war.

But I would also guess that support is pretty shallow. If the war drags on and many of the country's young men return in coffins or maimed by wounds, public opinion might start to turn.

I agree with the above except for the guess that the majority support the war right now: as you pointed out, I don't believe we know how prevalent (or rare) support for the war is in Russia. In such an iron-clad dictatorship, I generally take most guesses or claims about public opinion with a grain of salt.

Another abrupt change of subject. You're veering back and forth between the US and Russia, between Trump and Putin.

See above. This is both intentional and relevant to the topic I'm raising here.

You seem to be slipping an implicit unstated premise into your rhetoric: that Trump and Putin are somehow equivalent and that support for either of them is somehow the same and should be judged the same way if we are to avoid hypocrisy. That's a hugely false assumption in my opinion and needs acknowledgement and defense.

The core idea I'm getting at is that if one perceives Putin to be an immoral, criminal, or otherwise harmful authority figure, then the standards by which they judge his supporters should logically be similar to those by which they judge Trump supporters—unless, of course, they themselves are supporters of Trump and/or Putin. Since you've said that you voted for Trump, I don't expect you to view support for him as a negative thing, in which case the question becomes kind of moot anyway.

Replace Trump with any other president that someone may oppose in a similar manner to Putin and the question still holds. It's more a question about the consistency with which people extend goodwill to others and refuse to condemn them for their political choices and less about any specific politician or leader.

But to answer the question, I don't think that many/most of Putin's Russian supporters deserve my self-righteous moral abuse. They see themselves as patriots, they love their country, and they want Russia to be strong. They support Putin because in their eyes he rescued Russia when it was unraveling in the 1990's under Yeltsin. He restored stability and made people's lives better.

I don't hate them. I don't despise them. Like them I would like to see their country prosper and succeed. Ideally, I hope that it can someday become a friend of the United States. But Russia's success mustn't be at the expense of its neighbors. Finding a way to thread that needle requires that we take cognizance of their motivations and concerns.

For me, it would depend on the individual Putin supporter. I'm sure some are misled and genuinely believe the invasion of Ukraine is to combat Nazism, but I'm also sure some are either apathetic to the suffering and war crimes that have resulted from the invasion or actually supportive of those. The latter group are the kinds of people I could see myself condemning or at least viewing as deserving of such.

Of course. But I am also cheering for Ukraine and against Russia in this particular war. But my support for Ukraine doesn't imply any hatred for the Russian people. I like Russia and the Russian people. This ill-conceived war will likely turn out to be a tragedy for them. I hate to see that.

I share this sentiment except, as I said, for the subset I mentioned. I feel quite sad every time I think about the hardship that anti-war Russians have to go through because of a war that they had no say in and never wanted to start in the first place.

 

[F1fan]

No. But I do see there are two sides to the story and I can see why Russians believe they're doing the right thing.

Ultimately, even though I think Russia was provoked by NATO into a war that they really believe is for their own survival.

What did NATO do that leads you to believe they provokes Putin? And if you are correct, why was Putin so easily duped to invade?

Yet, I must side with Ukraine because I think it's a sovereign country and has a right to make their own decisions. So, no I don't side with Russia.

Do you ultimately hold Putin accountable for the whole war and the consequences?

 

[Revoltingest]

Bush's dishonesty served as the fuel for a long, drawn-out war that killed half a million Iraqis, launched an era of extended use of torture, and left the country in shambles for years after.

Bush wasn't the only President who pursued this war.
Clinton & Obama also continued it, with the latter
instituting the "surge". How do you judge them,
ie, as evil or worse than Putin or Bush?

The reasons and agendas merely speak to motives; they don't make a significant enough difference when it comes to the real-world effects of Bush's and Putin's plans, which similarly destroyed their target countries and caused immense suffering.

I give more weight to reasons than you do.
An invasion to prevent a country from invading
another country is better than invading with the
intent of conquest. But a problem Bush & Putin
share is citing religion as a reason to attack.

Note that Iraq did have WMDs. They just
didn't have the type & amount Bush claimed.
Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia

I oppose his being the conveyor of a message where he appears to be posing as a self-righteous messenger of peace, because his record tarnishes the message and casts a shadow on the authenticity of the larger messaging coming out of Western media and public figures. My stance on this would be different had he come out and acknowledged his mistake in supporting the Iraq War or apologized for it, but he hasn't (not that I know of, at least).

I favor his delivering the message because it could
be productive, past advocacy notwithstanding. Without
the apology you want, you'd prefer he remain silent?

I found both candidates horrendous, and Hillary's record is one of warmongering, corruption, and dishonesty.

That said, I believe she would have been a better president than Trump because of the long-term effects of his SCOTUS picks and his flirting with war on multiple occasions, in addition to his dubious stances on certain civil rights issues. He's far more unpredictable than she is, and while she's morally bankrupt (in my opinion), I doubt she would have been foolish enough to get the U.S. into yet another war or directly threaten to use nukes.

I'd think that with your opinion of Hillary, you'd
be more tolerant of voting for Trump in the 2016
election.
The 2020 election was a different kettle of fish,
since Trump had a record in office...one that
was quite illuminating.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everyone has had flawed views, but only a minority have had flawed views that have contributed to large-scale death and suffering. Schwarzenegger and other supporters of the Iraq invasion fall within the latter category.

Ahnold didn't wield governmental power though.
Just a citizen opining about issues.
Imperfect people can do good at times. Ahnold's
message is an example. This is better than silence.

BTW, I've seen many people here offer advocacy &
opinions that were wrong. Yet no apology followed.
Still, I treat their posts positively when they have
merit. We all live in that kind of glass house.

Since you say "usually,"...

That was a joke.
You were supposed to chuckle & flash me a smile.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you think anyone who supports Putin must be condemned regardless of their reasons or what they believe about Putin (whether or not those coincide with reality)?

Yes.

 

[Aštra’el]

Do you think anyone who supports Putin must be condemned regardless of their reasons or what they believe about Putin (whether or not those coincide with reality)?

Of course not. I try not to go around labeling people into easily dismissible categories thinking I understand them enough to obsessively condemn and oppose them. I just do not operate that way.

It does not matter to me in the slightest what politicians a person respects and admires, or “supports”.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course not. I try not to go around labeling people into easily dismissible categories thinking I understand them enough to obsessively condemn and oppose them. I just do not operate that way.

It does not matter to me in the slightest what politicians a person respects and admires, or “supports”.

That leads to the Paradox of Tolerance.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes.

I agree, but I'd use condemnation-lite for many
who believe the lie about attacking Nazis who
are killing Russians.

 

[Aštra’el]

That leads to the Paradox of Tolerance.

No it doesn’t. What it leads to is me not thinking and behaving like hypocrite.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No it doesn’t. What it leads to is me not thinking and behaving like hypocrite.

Tolerance for such things is how they become mainstream. That is the Paradox of Tolerance.

 

[Aštra’el]

Tolerance for such views is how they become mainstream.

You can embrace whatever herd mentality you perceive to be is the most proper and acceptable collective mindset, if that is what you are so concerned about. I will continue to focus my own Weltanschauung into whatever is most suitable to my own dreams and goals and ambitions. For someone as amoral as I, who is not deluded by perceptions of “rightness” and “wrongness”, there is no self-righteous hypocrisy clouding my judgment and dividing me against potential allies who might prove useful to me, and I them.

Life is a series of invisible corridors and gateways. Every person around you is a potentially infinite extension to that with endless possibilities. I would rather not allow my perspective of someone else’s political views to become a barrier to the whole other world existing within them.

 

[Revoltingest]

That leads to the Paradox of Tolerance.

There is no paradox.
"Tolerance" shouldn't be seen as meaning
tolerating everything that someone does.
Tolerate that which doesn't cause real harm.
Oppose that which harms.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no paradox.
"Tolerance" shouldn't be seen as meaning
tolerating everything that someone does.
Tolerate that which doesn't cause real harm.
Oppose that which harms.

The paradox is tolerating that which does harm can lead to an erosion of tolerance should the tolerated intolerant come to power.

 

[Revoltingest]

The paradox is tolerating that which does harm can lead to an erosion of tolerance should the tolerated intolerant come to power.

Is tolerance of everything, including great evil,
really the issue that people have mind when
advocating tolerance? I don't think so.
And I've seen many on RF being uncivil using
the excuse that being tolerant enables evil.
Of course, they advocate tolerance for their
own views.
Lordy, spare me from people who are the sole
possessors of The Truth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is tolerance of everything, including great evil,
really the issue that people have mind when
advocating tolerance? I don't think so.
And I've seen many on RF being uncivil using
the excuse that being tolerant enables evil.
Of course, they advocate tolerance for their
own views.
Lordy, spare me from people who are the sole
possessors of The Truth.

This was brought up in reference to specifically tolerating pro-Putin views, not this example or that person or other what have yous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You can embrace whatever herd mentality you perceive to be is the most proper and acceptable collective mindset, if that is what you are so concerned about. I will continue to focus my own Weltanschauung into whatever is most suitable to my own dreams and goals and ambitions. For someone as amoral as I, who is not deluded by perceptions of “rightness” and “wrongness”, there is no self-righteous hypocrisy clouding my judgment and dividing me against potential allies who might prove useful to me, and I them.

Life is a series of invisible corridors and gateways. Every person around you is a potentially infinite extension to that with endless possibilities. I would rather not allow my perspective of someone else’s political views to become a barrier to the whole other world existing within them.

I cut invisible things out if my life many years ago. Instead I started learning to live in this world, a world of actions and consequences where we are all interwoven together into the tapestry of Life. We have our responsibilities to keep things free for ourselves and others. Not caring if someone holds pro-Putin views is not minding that someone is promoting and defending an autocrat who is so in control that his opposition and critics often end up dead or missing.
It's no different than not minding if someone holds views that are pro-Nazi, pro-Klan, pro-Stalin, or pro-whatever violent, extremist and dangerous ideas and people.
And, yes, you have a duty and responsibility to act because to fail to act to safeguard your freedoms is a permission card to have them taken away. So, most definitely and very much it is very self serving to care.

 

[Revoltingest]

This was brought up in reference to specifically tolerating pro-Putin views, not this example or that person or other what have yous.

I tolerate pro-Putin views.
No need to be intolerant.
But I vigorously disagree with them.
And I hope Putin dies a quick (but painful)
death, & is replaced by someone better.