daywalker's recent activity
-
Comment on US Congress approves bill banning TikTok unless Chinese owner ByteDance sells platform in ~tech
-
Comment on US Congress approves bill banning TikTok unless Chinese owner ByteDance sells platform in ~tech
daywalker Link ParentAs a non-American, I see American sites spread all kinds of liberal propaganda, American supremacist propaganda, right-wing extremism, etc. So, it is deeply contradictory to turn a blind eye to...As a non-American, I see American sites spread all kinds of liberal propaganda, American supremacist propaganda, right-wing extremism, etc. So, it is deeply contradictory to turn a blind eye to those, especially considering how "free" laws of US allow an extremely great deal of manifactured consent. Even in the worst case, in this context, China just does more overtly what US does more covertly.
It honestly surprises me, for US, how much even "progressive" spaces revert to nationalist lines when it comes to "national security" or "democracy". This move is nationalism. Endorsing it only plays into reifying the current powers structures and escalating conflict.
When I was younger, I used to look up to countries like USA, because they seemed more progressive and rational. But in time I realized how much nationalism and dehumanization is within its structures, and how much "the average goodhearted Joe" or "progressive and rational liberal" would endorse nationalist lines, detriment to the people from "shithole" countries like me. Even if fatally detrimental. This is partially why most people outside of the """Western""" ones don't give any credence to humanist and egalitarian claims of the "The West", even if they sometimes make sense. Because, if you don't stand to benefit from it, the deeply self-serving double standards dominate and color the perceptions.
Let me be more direct. When vast majority toes the line like this, we fear you. Your nationalism is terrifying. Your wars are terrifying. Your "democracy" is terrifying. Your "freedom" is terrifying. I don't want to be scared of people, and I don't want to reify the fucked up status quo, but if you continue to support moves like this, that is where the world will move toward. And, even from a self-serving perspective, USA is a failing empire. Its dominance will eventually pass away. A failing empire needs friends, more peace, not reigniting old flames of hostility. Not to mention that the world is only just starting to face several ecological systems crises that require a great deal of international cooperation.
Your comment and the support it got both saddened me and made me anxious. Apparently, even Tildes is not exempt from this. It's a melancholic and bitter feeling.
-
Comment on Fellow hardline materialists, how do you "enchant" the world? in ~talk
daywalker (edited )Link ParentIt's not just that other animals harm others. It's also hunger, malnutrition, scarcity. But yeah, that's the gist of it. I have a somewhat unique perspective about this issue. I have a lot of...It's not just that other animals harm others. It's also hunger, malnutrition, scarcity. But yeah, that's the gist of it.
I have a somewhat unique perspective about this issue. I have a lot of health issues which forced and force me to confront mortality, I am a life scientist, I've had a morbid curiosity phase in the past, I read a lot philosophically pessimist literature in my life. So, all combine to give me a certain perspective. I still stand by my decision to affirm my own life, which positions me somewhere among life-affirming philosophical pessimists that say "Yeah, universe is full of suffering or devoid of meaning, but I still want to live," (e.g. Nietzsche, Camus). But I'm not sure I can say the same thing about life in general. Which is out of anyone's hands anyway. If humanity was to nuke everything to hell, life still would survive in some way and flourish again. Not to mention, Earth is just one grain of sand in a vast desert.
I can't speak about the generalizability of this with confidence, but my experience is that scientists in general aren't philosophically inclined. They are actually barely interested in fields outside of their own, even within science. So, for me, these topics never came up during conversations.
-
Comment on Scientists push new paradigm of animal consciousness, saying even insects may be sentient in ~enviro
daywalker LinkNews like this one have profound existential implications. Looking past the obvious ones, they also relate to philosophical pessimism—the idea that life or universe is filled with more negatives...News like this one have profound existential implications. Looking past the obvious ones, they also relate to philosophical pessimism—the idea that life or universe is filled with more negatives than positives, or that the former outweigh the latter.
If even insects are conscious, then this is horrible news. Insect taxon is vicious, even by the low standards of nature in general. They are also numerous. This means nature is filled with much more suffering than previously imagined. Much, much more. To quote Joseph de Maistre.
"The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death."
I'm not saying life is not worth living for us because of this, but it's certainly an existential point to ponder on.
But when the animals came to their water-hole, where he out of habit waited for them, he no longer knew the spring of the tiger in his blood, but a great psalm to the brotherhood of suffering shared by all that lives.
-
Comment on Is Tildes failing to thrive? in ~tildes
daywalker Link ParentWhy would you frame it as a nonprofit, instead of a forum? The former is still a business approach to things. It might be divorced from the intense profit-drive, but it still employs similar...I am a bit concerned that there is no promotion or marketing strategy. Successful nonprofits share their mission and how they meet their goals.
Why would you frame it as a nonprofit, instead of a forum? The former is still a business approach to things. It might be divorced from the intense profit-drive, but it still employs similar strategies and thinking. Especially about growing. But growth isn't an intrinsically desirable trait. Before social media was the colossus it is now, forums generally just existed and were enjoyed.
I can't know this for sure, but I suspect people are used to thinking in terms of the newer social media, which are businesses and hellbent on growth, that they don't realize or forget the old mode of creating and sustaining forums is also a very viable approach, which worked (and still work albeit in a more niche manner) for many sites. This is why I think there are so many concerns regarding Tildes, while I see it already as a massive success.
-
Comment on Fellow hardline materialists, how do you "enchant" the world? in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentI'm a life scientist, and a passionate one, so I'm obviously interested in how the universe and life work. But I do not think, in general, it's a beautiful setting for life. It definitely has...I'm a life scientist, and a passionate one, so I'm obviously interested in how the universe and life work. But I do not think, in general, it's a beautiful setting for life. It definitely has beautiful and magical moments, but generally it's a very hostile and cruel place. Nature is vicious, and most animals live lives of misery, which end abruptly and early.
To quote Darwin.
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I should wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
This is a big part of the reason why I think of the natural laws as Lovecraftian gods. To quote an essay.
In a way, Darwin discovered God—a God that failed to match the preconceptions of theology, and so passed unheralded. If Darwin had discovered that life was created by an intelligent agent—a bodiless mind that loves us, and will smite us with lightning if we dare say otherwise—people would have said "My gosh! That's God!"
But instead Darwin discovered a strange alien God—not comfortably "ineffable", but really genuinely different from us. Evolution is not a God, but if it were, it wouldn't be Jehovah. It would be H. P. Lovecraft's Azathoth, the blind idiot God burbling chaotically at the center of everything, surrounded by the thin monotonous piping of flutes.
Which you might have predicted, if you had really looked at Nature.
This is why universe is more Dark Souls rather than high fantasy for me. I still think it's kind of magical, but in a twisted way.
-
Comment on Fellow hardline materialists, how do you "enchant" the world? in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentThis is an angle I hadn't thought about. I do love visual, auditory, and narrative arts a lot, so it makes sense. Thanks!This is an angle I hadn't thought about. I do love visual, auditory, and narrative arts a lot, so it makes sense. Thanks!
-
Comment on Fellow hardline materialists, how do you "enchant" the world? in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentI want to clarify two points. If there was a special place on Tildes for the group I mentioned, I would have created the topic there, but there is not. However, even with that being said, I don't...I want to clarify two points.
If you specifically want to exclude any conversation from people with viewpoints different than yours, would it perhaps make sense to ask this in a more specific venue?
If there was a special place on Tildes for the group I mentioned, I would have created the topic there, but there is not. However, even with that being said, I don't think it's wrong or offensive to ask for input from a specific group in a more general subforum. It's done all the time, but since it's not about a religious topic, it's not thought of in this way. Many of these topics ask for input from specific people, whether it be about having experienced a certain thing (e.g. having a life-altering experience) or being a certain role (e.g. a parent). The kind of topic I have in mind is not different from this.
You could say that I emphasized the "No outsiders!" point too much, and I can see that. It may have a point. But it's a habit I developed throughout the years, because I found topics like this are often flooded with answers from "outgroups", if the lines aren't drawn clearly. Especially considering hardline materialists are a minority in every country in the world. This is why I exercised extra caution, which is probably partially why you took an issue with it. And while I see your point, and it's worth thinking about, at the moment I don't think it's wrong.
We probably live in very different places. In my personal life, I am lonely enough with my beliefs regarding these issues, and in this topic, I wanted to hear from like-minded people, not people I have fundamental disagreements with, who are the majority and dominate most conversations about these topics in most places anyway. I think people like me should be entitled to have these talks among ourselves, without being dominated by the majority beliefs. As it stands, I can't have that here on this site any other way, and I don't think the limits of the current structure of the site should mean that then I shouldn't create topics like this for people like me. I am silenced enough in real life, and I don't want to keep being silent here, to not make people who are the majority in real life feel slightly excluded about a specific topic.
You are viewing the world through an essentially religious, even theist, and distinctly non-materialist lens, while acknowledging that that lens is artificial.
This is a misunderstanding. I don't in any way give epistemological weight to the symbolizations I mentioned. They are not even the main lens through which I see the universe. They are symbols I sometimes think about to entertain myself, and give a symbolic face to experiences I have.
This is not much different than writing literature in general, maybe not at all. I love fiction, and this is a variety of creative fiction for me. Basically crafting fictional narratives about the existence to make it more interesting, exciting, and symbolically easier to interact with in some ways. It's why people write stories—taking elements from life and then transforming them to symbol-structures to create narratives.
-
Comment on Fellow hardline materialists, how do you "enchant" the world? in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentQuite the contrary, it's very similar to what I do. I love fiction, and this is why I take my inspiration regarding existence from the likes of Lovecraft, Berserk, Dark Souls, and other...Quite the contrary, it's very similar to what I do. I love fiction, and this is why I take my inspiration regarding existence from the likes of Lovecraft, Berserk, Dark Souls, and other existentialist literature. People often think only the "literary" authors are capable of philosophical reflection, but I don't agree with that. For example, Aldia's dialogue from DS2 speaks to me a lot, it's very captivating, and at times I remember his words. This happens a lot with the fiction I interact with. I experience an emotion, and then I remember a scene that touched me from a piece of fiction which made me feel a similar emotion. This elevates both that piece of fiction and the moment I'm experiencing.
I think the symbolization aspect is important to me, because I'm a huge nerd, and fiction excites me, so I bring it to the physical world too. But on a deeper level, I think it's also because fiction after all is a way of interacting with the world. It touches people in the heart, which is never isolated.
-
Fellow hardline materialists, how do you "enchant" the world?
As the classical argument goes, as the metaphysical aspects of the universe were stripped away by materialism, it was disenchanted. That it became more soulless, barren, and less enjoyable. While...
As the classical argument goes, as the metaphysical aspects of the universe were stripped away by materialism, it was disenchanted. That it became more soulless, barren, and less enjoyable. While this argument has merit, I don't think it's necessarily true.
For example, I'm a hardline materialist, meaning I don't think any metaphysical phenomenon exists, there is no afterlife, and that it's extremely unlikely a "God" exists. However, I also create dramatic and playful narratives around existence. I think of the natural laws of the universe as cold, unfeeling, grand Lovecraftian gods. I also think of the human existence, struggle, and search for warmth and meaning as an existentialist endeavor, a rebellion against this cruel and hostile cosmos. It can be likened to the narrative in Dark Souls or Berserk. A suffocatingly dark cosmos that also has warmth scattered around.
This is my way of "enchanting" these jumbled together random bits that we call a universe, and the lives lived within it. So, other hardline materialists, how do you "enchant" your life and view of the world?
I don't think it will be an issue, but just in case, please, no non-materialist answers. This topic's intention is not to debate anyone about materialism or metaphysics, but to have a conversation among a particular group of people.
26 votes -
Zacklabe: a site for great up-to-date visualizations regarding climate change, especially about Arctic and Antarctic
Zacklabe is a site, created by the climate scientist and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researcher, Zachary Labe, that has many great visualizations of data regarding climate...
Zacklabe is a site, created by the climate scientist and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researcher, Zachary Labe, that has many great visualizations of data regarding climate change, especially about the Arctic and Antarctic. It gathers its data from scientific observations, which are cited. You can access the visualizations following this link. Here are the visualizations, with many graphics for each entry.
Arctic Climate Seasonality and Variability
Arctic Sea Ice Extent and Concentration
Arctic Sea Ice Volume and Thickness
Arctic Temperatures
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent and Concentration
Climate Change Indicators
Climate model projections compared to observations in the Arctic
Global Sea Ice Extent and Concentration
Polar Climate Change FiguresNote: I briefly created a similar topic, but it was only about a single link from here. I deleted because I realized it's much better to create a thread about the site in general.
8 votes -
Introduction to the physical basis of global warming
This is my attempt at contributing to "A Layperson's Introduction" series, here on Tildes. It's why it's here on ~science, rather than ~enviro Many people have heard about how global warming...
This is my attempt at contributing to "A Layperson's Introduction" series, here on Tildes. It's why it's here on ~science, rather than ~enviroMany people have heard about how global warming works. “We are emitting greenhouse gases, and these trap heat, leading to further warming.” So how does this process occur in more detail? What is its physical basis? In this post, I will try to explain the physical basis of these questions in a simple way that is a bit more detailed than what is usually seen.
Electromagnetic Spectrum and Thermal Radiation
The electromagnetic spectrum is a broad spectrum that includes visible light. There are long wavelengths, such as radio waves and infrared light, and short wavelengths, such as ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays.
Visualization of the electromagnetic spectrum
Thermal radiation is the radiation emitted by the molecules of an object due to thermal movement. It can be in the visible light wavelength, shorter wavelength, or longer wavelength. The length of these wavelengths varies depending on the temperature of the object that is the source of thermal radiation. For example, the thermal radiation emitted by Earth falls into the infrared spectrum, which is at lower energy, because Earth is not as hot as a star. The shift of thermal radiation emitted by colder objects to longer wavelengths is also known as Wien's law.
Energy Budget and Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Our planet Earth has a certain energy budget. In other words, the energy coming to the planet and the energy going out from the planet are specific. The source of the energy coming to the Earth is the Sun, and on average, approximately 340 Watt/m2 energy reaches the surface of the planet. In order for this energy to be balanced, the energy radiated from Earth into space must be equal to this amount. This happens in two ways. First, some of the incoming energy is reflected into space by the Earth itself. Both the atmosphere (especially clouds) and the surface make this reflection. The second part can be explained by a physical law called Stefan Boltzmann law. According to this law, each object emits a certain amount of energy as thermal radiation, and the amount of this energy increases with temperature. This increase does not occur linearly, but as the fourth power of temperature. The mathematical expression of the law is given below.
E = σT4
In this equation, "E" is the energy, "σ" (sigma) is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and "T" is the temperature in Kelvin. However, the law cannot be applied to any object in its current form. The above equation is valid for ideal bodies called "black bodies". In physics, a black body is the name given to an ideal body that absorbs and emits all incoming radiation. However, Earth differs from a black body due to reflection. Therefore, the following equation is more appropriate.
E = εσT4
Here, ε (epsilon) means emissivity. Emissivity is the effectiveness of the surface of a material in emitting energy as thermal radiation. For a black body, ε = 1. The Earth's mean ε is less than 1, because it is not a black body. At the same time, emissivity changes depending on which part of the Earth is examined. For example, the emissivity of a vegetated surface and a desert or glacier are different. However, it is more important for us at this point to remember that the mean ε is less than 1.
When we look at the formulae above, we see that, in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the Earth emits thermal radiation depending on the temperature, even though it is not a black body. This constitutes the second part of the Earth's energy budget, namely thermal radiation. In summary, Earth receives energy from the Sun and radiates this energy through reflection and thermal radiation.
Radiative Forcing and Greenhouse Effect
The energy budget is very important for our planet. Any change in the budget causes Earth to warm or cool. Natural or human-induced changes that change the balance between incoming and outgoing energy are called radiative forcing. This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the planet. Some gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4), have physical properties that absorb the thermal radiation emitted by Earth. If you remember, Earth's thermal radiation was in the infrared spectrum. That is, these gases absorb at certain points in the infrared spectrum. As a result of this absorption, the gases emit it again in the form of thermal radiation in all directions. While some of the emitted radiation escapes into space, some of it remains on Earth, causing warming. Since the energy emitted by Earth will increase as it warms up, at a certain point, the incoming and outgoing energy becomes equal again.
CO2 emissions, concentration, and radiative forcing
In the image above, in different climate change scenarios, emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2) (left), the corresponding increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (middle), and the increasing radiative forcing due to this increase are shown (right). Note that the radiative forcing is shown in Watts/m2. It is shown this way because it is calculated based on the change in Earth's energy budget, and Earth's energy budget is shown as Watt/m2.
In other words, although the incoming energy is the same, there is a certain decrease in the energy going into space due to the greenhouse effect. This leads to what we call radiative forcing. As a result of radiative forcing, the temperature of Earth increases, and as the temperature increases, the thermal radiation energy emitted by the planet increases. This causes the incoming and outgoing energy to become equal again. As a result, in the long run, radiative forcing (and the greenhouse effect) does not lead to a change in the energy budget. However, it causes solar energy to remain in the atmosphere for a longer period of time, causing a certain amount of warming. This is what we call global warming due to the greenhouse effect.
This process is, of course, more complex than described here. Since the atmosphere has a layered and fluid structure, there are factors that make the job more complicated. For example, while the increase in CO2 warms the troposphere (what we call global warming), the lowest layer of the atmosphere, it causes the stratosphere, its upper layer, to cool. Despite these and similar complexities, the physical basis of global warming is still based on the mechanisms described in this post.
Sources
- Schmittner, A. (2018). Introduction to Climate Science. Oregan State University
- van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Smith, S. J., & Rose, S. K. (2011). The Representative Concentration Pathways: An overview. Climatic Change, 109(1-2), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
- Wild, M., Folini, D., Schär, C., Loeb, N., Dutton, E.G., König-Langlo, G. (2013). The global energy balance from a surface perspective. Clim Dyn 40, 3107–3134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8
- Zohuri, B., McDaniel, P. (2021). Basic of heat transfer. Introduction to Energy Essentials, 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-90152-9.00017-7
Image Sources
- Image 1: https://science.nasa.gov/ems/01_intro/
- Image 2: van Vuuren et al., 2011
20 votes -
Energy as a conserved quantity (why it's a useful abstraction)
8 votes -
AI traces mysterious metastatic cancers to their source
4 votes -
As I get older, I get more and more disillusioned with "activism", and I'm fine with this
Long story short, I grew up believing that a great deal of worth of someone's life was effecting change, especially politically. That's why I valued activism. It took courage, especially...
Long story short, I grew up believing that a great deal of worth of someone's life was effecting change, especially politically. That's why I valued activism. It took courage, especially considering I don't live in a developed country.
The older I got and more problems I faced, I started to realize how unsatisfactory, even hollow this was. Modes of activism I engaged in didn't seem to fulfill me emotionally anymore, they were mostly impersonal, and they didn't seem to change anything. I have a lot of views that are extremely unorthodox for the place I live in, and I don't see any political movement that internalizes those values. I am extremely alienated from the "nation" I am supposedly part of, and from the political movements within it.
Another angle is that I recently realized how misguided I was. I was mostly doing mental labor, believing in the axiom that ideas can change things. But after some time and readings, I started thinking activities that aim for collective action and concrete changes (e.g. syndicates) were much more important. These are not available to me.
I feel like I have wasted a lot of my time. I pursued ideals more than my own emotional needs, believing they would make me happy and fulfilled, and they didn't. I pursued a way of engaging in politics that felt good but didn't effect change.
Don't get me wrong, while this is exasperating, it's also extremely liberating, joyful even. I enjoy the moments of quiet destruction that bring about the new. I no longer feel ashamed to admit I want comfort and stability in my life, and I don't want to take unnecessary risks. I have enough problems as is.
With this being said, I haven't given up on effecting change. I think it's much more convoluted and different than what I imagined when I was younger, and it's not generally about "going out there and showing up" or writing political texts and such. There are also levels to creating change, as it's not a binary thing.
At this point, I want to primarily live for myself, participate in some kind of change without risking myself to the point of overwhelming anxiety, and make more personal and real connections with people in general, including during effecting change.
What I've written here is a bit rough, but it's still an ongoing and raw process for me, and this post is more of a conversation topic, rather than a properly structured argument. I am interested in hearing your opinions. Has anyone had similar experiences, or things this post reminded you of?
44 votes -
Comment on Under development: WoW Remix: Mists of Pandaria (not classic) in ~games
daywalker Link ParentThat's why I prefer more lateral MMOs, like Guild Wars 2 or Elder Scrolls Online. They have different systems that allow a wider choice of picks for endgaming, especially GW2.That's why I prefer more lateral MMOs, like Guild Wars 2 or Elder Scrolls Online. They have different systems that allow a wider choice of picks for endgaming, especially GW2.
-
Comment on Under development: WoW Remix: Mists of Pandaria (not classic) in ~games
daywalker LinkIt's insane how this is presented only as a temporary thing, while you can play all the maps as endgame content in many MMOs. It's a step in the right direction, for sure, but I think it's still...It's insane how this is presented only as a temporary thing, while you can play all the maps as endgame content in many MMOs. It's a step in the right direction, for sure, but I think it's still missing the mark. At least for me. I always disliked how WoW's massive world and stories were made moot by the focus on the latest expansion. I feel like it has so much to offer: its world is massive, it has decades of content. If only the game took some pages from different approaches.
-
Comment on Best "dad" jokes and puns! in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentLmao true :sob: But I won't correct it!Lmao true :sob: But I won't correct it!
-
Comment on Best "dad" jokes and puns! in ~talk
daywalker LinkWhy did the mermaid give up wearing sea cups? She grew to B cups!Why did the mermaid give up wearing sea cups?
She grew to B cups!
-
Comment on Tildes is changing the way I use and think about online engagement. How about you? in ~tildes
daywalker LinkIt made me reconsider my approach to online forums and social media. Places like Reddit have a very aggressive and debate-centric approach. Just like cfabbro, I was anxious of receiving...It made me reconsider my approach to online forums and social media. Places like Reddit have a very aggressive and debate-centric approach. Just like cfabbro, I was anxious of receiving notifications in these sites. Especially if I had made a controversial comment. While this is not completely gone, I think I realized how much I miss conversations, rather than takedowns.
For example, I made a controversial comment the other day. It attracted some heat, but after I explained myself, I was surprised to see it was very well-received. This is not something I'm used to seeing, because people generally dismiss it and double down, even going as far as hurling insults.
One of the strongest sides of Tildes is, for me, people being willing to listen. It feels really nice! And people do read the follow-up comments, too, which is part of this conversation-centric approach.
As a result of this, I'm trying to change my habits regarding online forums. There are two reasons. First is that I would much rather have this than what I've seen elsewhere so far. The second is that I don't want to disturb the habitat too much, so to speak. There's been an influx of new members, and I'm one of them, but this part of the site is what attracted me in the first place, and I want to preserve it. This requires unlearning things and learning, developing some new habits.
With this being said, I have some doubts about the extent of healthy communication on what I call open social media sites, where the mode of interaction is different from conversations among friends. I'm still in the process of considering various angles, and whether this is something I want for me. But for now, I can say that I do appreciate this place.
I believe you believe this, but I don't believe the players of US politics believe this. There are several reasons.
These aren't answerable by US lawmakers and their narrative. I think there are two reasonable explanations for this.
This is partially why I think it's nationalist and self-serving. Time and again I saw US politicians (and citizens) talk about values and democracy and such, while fucking up the world for self-serving reasons. The citizens may believe the reasons put forward by politicians, but that is the thing with ideology. It disguises things so that they are easier to defend or attack. I don't see any particular reason why this is different. The things that you mentioned are the Great Euphemisms of US international politics. US, as a state, is not a "force of good" many US citizens think it to be. And it's not because it doesn't defeat its enemies.
Edit: Again, to be more clear, the scary part is that you sincerely believe you are supporting something good. The self-righteous US international politics did and does so much harm.