Double standard, doublespeak and hypocrisy all seem applicable. So maybe like chauvinistic double standard or exceptionalist hypocrisy or some combination thereof. It does feel like there’s a lack of terminology with broad appeal in this respect.

Maybe like “state(/applicable noun) sugar coating” gets the message across in a way that even those with the reading age of a 9 year old might get the gist of.

Billionaires are all bad. That said if some of them want to squabble over who is the least bad billionaire, and that causes a rift between them, so much the better.

I think there’s an element of western Marxists realising that the population they’re in is so effectively propagandised against (see: cold war, red scare, etc.) that drawing some kind of delineation is seen as necessary to progress any kind of argument. It’s a consequence of the victors writing the history books over here.

Any highlighting of western atrocities is always handwaved away as “whataboutism”. The west more or less invented a logical fallacy purely to prevent fair comparison in this specific context, and it is seen as generally applicable despite the fact that in any other context such comparisons would be seen as valid. Western influencers generally seem to hold to a view that moral history started in 1917 (except, of course, when it comes to Palestine) and I think this is broadly seen as a way to try to “work around” it.