Impeachment and the Just World Fallacy.

Politics & Elections
1

I call it the ‘just world fallacy’. But one way or another, people just accept things the way they are. They think they are inevitable or just as well. Status Quo is another name for it. In fact I’ll bet at this point in the Watergate scandal, even fewer people supported Nixon’s impeachment. Then he resigned, and everyone was sure he was a jerk.

So however this scandal works its way out, people will say it was inevitable, it was meant to be. And they will just move on with their lives.

Am I wrong?

:):):):slight_smile:

2

According to Trump himself it’s inevitable that he will come out victorious.

3

I don’t even know what you said.

4

I do not believe “just world fallacy” means what you think it does.

5

As I said, I wasn’t sure what to call the phenomenon. But ‘just world fallacy’ was the closest. I still think it applies a little bit, though:).

6

Are you saying, if Mr. Trump is impeached he deserves to be impeached, and if Mr. Trump is acquitted he deserves to be acquitted? Perhaps you are talking about predeterminism instead.

~Max

7

I am talking about human psychology and how it changes to suit the current situation. :slight_smile:

8

In that case, I agree that the just world hypothesis (or just world fallacy) is the correct term.

Whatever happens, some people will rationalize events by appealing to a sense of natural justice.

~Max

9

This ^

10

The term “Just World Fallacy” already exists, and refers to something entirely different.

11

(I also called it Status Quo and said I knew that the first term may be the incorrect one FWIW:).)

12

There are two extreme views on history. One is that whatever happens was the inevitable result of hidden historical forces. E.g., the Soviet revolution (I will not dignify it by calling it communist) was a result of such forces. The other extreme is the great man theory that unusual individuals (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, even George Washington) drive the course of history. The OP is talking about the first I am inclined towards the second. But I also believe that contingency drives much of it. Just ask the dinosaurs about asteroids.

13

I think what the OP is alluding to is the normalization of the extreme under Trump. Basically, when the president who lies constantly, supports conspiracy theories, the opposition party are traitors who should be executed, publicly calls for foreign countries to interfere in the election, spends a week composing a 6 pagechildish rant to the speaker of the house, it no longer raises an eyebrow, because its nothing new. Its just the way he is, so its not unusual or something that should be held against him.

14

I don’t get this thread. OP was not far off about the real Just World Fallacy insomuch as he posits that whatever happens, people will rationalize it as “he got what he deserves.” I don’t understand all this condescension.

But they pose a relevant question: What will happen after Trump isn’t a leech to power?

The conservatives I know the closest in the past thought GW was literally sent by God Almighty Himself to “fix” America, and regardless of anything bad he did while in power, they supported him whole-hog.

But a few years after he had absolutely no grip or power and no possibility of having any grip on power, he was evil. He started a fake war and killed so many people.

It’s really interesting how Cons will desperately latch onto whatever vehicle wields power on their behalf, and how quickly they drop them like a hot sack of dog diapers the second they aren’t useful.

I suspect everyone–especially Trump’s GOP Toadies like McDongle and Graham will claim to have NEVER supported Trump ever, and go back to what they said before he was elected.

I know for a fact my family will forget ever supporting him after he grips no power.

So it’s an interesting question.