4 ms·

No, someone else doing a bad thing doesn't make doing that bad thing okay.

pinkfoot 7y ago
Er no: if the largest, most powerful country on earth - with the most amount of allies and friendly trading partners is doing something and is getting away with it, then - by definition - it acceptable to the 'norms of the times'. Which means others can do it to.
- johnisgood 7y ago
  No, it does not make it okay. If it is morally questionable, then no matter who does it, it remains so.
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    Actually no, allow me to give you another example: Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders (Go ahead an try travelling as a Swiss national and then again as a Sudanese). I think this is reprehensible and I suspect others will one day too. Right now - its not even discussed. Hence 'acceptable to the norms of the times'. And here's the rub: not only am I considered a naive quack on this issue, but it would be quickly pointed out when a nation state with strict border visa requirements told of another state for doing the same. You need to work through your assumptions more.
    - johnisgood 7y ago
      I am not entirely sure, but I believe what you are referring to is double standard, and/or being inconsistent. Is this correct? If so, then I agree that - unfortunately - it happens a lot. If X does A, it is fine, but if Y does A, then it is not fine. Yes, I know, this happens, but this does not make A any less wrong if one is consistent about it.
      - pinkfoot 7y ago
        It loses its authority when X is never called to stop doing A.
    - gtirloni 7y ago
      You're starting to make less sense the more you reply, sorry. > Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders And? The point is that people are not their government. They disagree with what they govt is doing and speak out. What's your point exactly? Again, your bad actions are not justified by the bad actions of others. I think you need to work through your logic, otherwise, you might end up justifying murder because.. well... people do it, right?
      - pinkfoot 7y ago
        >> And? The point is that people are not their government. Out of curiosity - I don't spend much time in the developed world - do you REALLY believe this? The mere possession of 3,800 nuclear weapons over the better part of a century and despite the commitments in the NNPT - means that ultimately the developed world will hold the citizens of other countries responsible for the actions of their governments. The cognitive dissonance is astonishing.
- godelski 7y ago
  I think what's happening here is a difference in how we view our governments. In the West, and especially in America, we don't highly internalize "being American" (insert country). A lot of us just think of it as a circumstances. And right now there's a lot of distaste for what the government does. You'll probably find that most of the people are upset at their own country about exactly what you're upset about what America does (I know I am, and it looks like the parent does too. At least in the specific example). We don't always condone what the government does. We don't see that as "us" but "them". You'll see many people speaking out against the government here when they do things we don't like (that's democracy in action. The belief that governments need to be put in check). So when we don't like something we try to get it changed, and this frequently works. More often than not actually, and the nots are usually that it takes longer than we want. So an American won't see themselves as a hypocrite for calling out a country for doing something that America does if they also disagree that America does it. We just don't see our government in that way. Edit: The parent is also making reference to a phrase that most of our mothers taught us: "just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right" (or some variation)
  - wonnage 7y ago
    These are dubious claims considering the rise of populist leaders in various western democracies. It’s also annoying to see westerners comment on how “those” people think politically. Chat with any Chinese taxi (well, didi) driver for a bit and you’ll hear plenty of complaints and the occasional wild conspiracy theory, although they’re obviously careful not to go too far for their own good (didi started recording audio for passenger safety reasons). This dissociation from government is also just generally disingenuous. You reap the benefits of all these policies you are supposedly against, and get to feel good about yourself because “well, I didn’t condone it”. Is this really any different from a Chinese police officer saying “I was just following orders”?
    - godelski 7y ago
      In your complaint you even note the difference, so I'm a little confused. > although [Didi drivers are] obviously careful not to go too far for their own good I don't think any Westerner seriously feels that they could be jailed for anything short of telling some official that they're going to kill the president or some major leader. Person to person, you can say whatever. As much as I don't like the NSA's overreach I don't think they are listening or don't bother themselves with these acts (one of the two has to be true given the last decade). So I'd say that's one big difference. You're also talking about a time when America has record distaste and distrust for their politicians and president. It wasn't always like this and I think your argument would be fine if the majority of people supported the state, but that's just currently not the case. > You reap the benefits of all these policies you are supposedly against How do I not? Seriously. I didn't choose to be born in this country. I can't just not reap the benefits. There is no method for me to pick and choose my benefits based on my personal beliefs. So I'm not sure what you expect me to do. There's no country I can move to that is doing significantly better. The only action I can see is to attempt to change what is happening here. But if you see more that I can do I would appreciate the advice (I'm serious). I'm not resigning to my "fate". A defeatist attitude is a step backwards. > Is this really any different from a Chinese police officer saying “I was just following orders”? Yes. I'm not sure why you think the populous is the same as state actors (police). They are different entities. Also, "just following orders" isn't an excuse in the military, let alone international law. It doesn't hold up here in America. You can go to jail for committing crimes that you were ordered to commit. Doesn't matter if you're the head of the military following the president's orders (you may notice that generals do ignore presidential orders, see the Muller report) or a police officer following the chief. Authorization does not protect you in a court of law.

Er no: if the largest, most powerful country on earth - with the most amount of allies and friendly trading partners is doing something and is getting away with it, then - by definition - it acceptable to the 'norms of the times'. Which means others can do it to.

johnisgood 7y ago
No, it does not make it okay. If it is morally questionable, then no matter who does it, it remains so.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  Actually no, allow me to give you another example: Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders (Go ahead an try travelling as a Swiss national and then again as a Sudanese). I think this is reprehensible and I suspect others will one day too. Right now - its not even discussed. Hence 'acceptable to the norms of the times'. And here's the rub: not only am I considered a naive quack on this issue, but it would be quickly pointed out when a nation state with strict border visa requirements told of another state for doing the same. You need to work through your assumptions more.
  - johnisgood 7y ago
    I am not entirely sure, but I believe what you are referring to is double standard, and/or being inconsistent. Is this correct? If so, then I agree that - unfortunately - it happens a lot. If X does A, it is fine, but if Y does A, then it is not fine. Yes, I know, this happens, but this does not make A any less wrong if one is consistent about it.
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      It loses its authority when X is never called to stop doing A.
  - gtirloni 7y ago
    You're starting to make less sense the more you reply, sorry. > Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders And? The point is that people are not their government. They disagree with what they govt is doing and speak out. What's your point exactly? Again, your bad actions are not justified by the bad actions of others. I think you need to work through your logic, otherwise, you might end up justifying murder because.. well... people do it, right?
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      >> And? The point is that people are not their government. Out of curiosity - I don't spend much time in the developed world - do you REALLY believe this? The mere possession of 3,800 nuclear weapons over the better part of a century and despite the commitments in the NNPT - means that ultimately the developed world will hold the citizens of other countries responsible for the actions of their governments. The cognitive dissonance is astonishing.
godelski 7y ago
I think what's happening here is a difference in how we view our governments. In the West, and especially in America, we don't highly internalize "being American" (insert country). A lot of us just think of it as a circumstances. And right now there's a lot of distaste for what the government does. You'll probably find that most of the people are upset at their own country about exactly what you're upset about what America does (I know I am, and it looks like the parent does too. At least in the specific example). We don't always condone what the government does. We don't see that as "us" but "them". You'll see many people speaking out against the government here when they do things we don't like (that's democracy in action. The belief that governments need to be put in check). So when we don't like something we try to get it changed, and this frequently works. More often than not actually, and the nots are usually that it takes longer than we want. So an American won't see themselves as a hypocrite for calling out a country for doing something that America does if they also disagree that America does it. We just don't see our government in that way. Edit: The parent is also making reference to a phrase that most of our mothers taught us: "just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right" (or some variation)
- wonnage 7y ago
  These are dubious claims considering the rise of populist leaders in various western democracies. It’s also annoying to see westerners comment on how “those” people think politically. Chat with any Chinese taxi (well, didi) driver for a bit and you’ll hear plenty of complaints and the occasional wild conspiracy theory, although they’re obviously careful not to go too far for their own good (didi started recording audio for passenger safety reasons). This dissociation from government is also just generally disingenuous. You reap the benefits of all these policies you are supposedly against, and get to feel good about yourself because “well, I didn’t condone it”. Is this really any different from a Chinese police officer saying “I was just following orders”?
  - godelski 7y ago
    In your complaint you even note the difference, so I'm a little confused. > although [Didi drivers are] obviously careful not to go too far for their own good I don't think any Westerner seriously feels that they could be jailed for anything short of telling some official that they're going to kill the president or some major leader. Person to person, you can say whatever. As much as I don't like the NSA's overreach I don't think they are listening or don't bother themselves with these acts (one of the two has to be true given the last decade). So I'd say that's one big difference. You're also talking about a time when America has record distaste and distrust for their politicians and president. It wasn't always like this and I think your argument would be fine if the majority of people supported the state, but that's just currently not the case. > You reap the benefits of all these policies you are supposedly against How do I not? Seriously. I didn't choose to be born in this country. I can't just not reap the benefits. There is no method for me to pick and choose my benefits based on my personal beliefs. So I'm not sure what you expect me to do. There's no country I can move to that is doing significantly better. The only action I can see is to attempt to change what is happening here. But if you see more that I can do I would appreciate the advice (I'm serious). I'm not resigning to my "fate". A defeatist attitude is a step backwards. > Is this really any different from a Chinese police officer saying “I was just following orders”? Yes. I'm not sure why you think the populous is the same as state actors (police). They are different entities. Also, "just following orders" isn't an excuse in the military, let alone international law. It doesn't hold up here in America. You can go to jail for committing crimes that you were ordered to commit. Doesn't matter if you're the head of the military following the president's orders (you may notice that generals do ignore presidential orders, see the Muller report) or a police officer following the chief. Authorization does not protect you in a court of law.