4 ms·

All this overlooks one simple principle. A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one. As an example, we let the guilty g

All this overlooks one simple principle. A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one. As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't. After 9/11, there was a lot of reporting about the NYPD and others profiling Muslims without any reason. As someone from Europe, it seems to me like the U.S. "exports democracy" all around the world, with often terrible results, without ever stopping to examine whether its own is still holding and if it really can be held as an example for the world to emulate. You don't punish an entity simply for where their founders were born. Not in a democracy anyway. If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned. You don't start torturing, just because you want someone to be able to blame and fast. You don't block markets to someone because someone else on the same land mass pissed you off. It may seem "unfair" because the CCP has blocked many Western platforms, but you don't have values unless you're willing to uphold them in the most difficult of situations.

AlexCoventry 6y ago
Not to mention, it's such a bad look for a President to go after companies which have played a role in amplifying free speech which attacks the President himself (Sarah Cooper, the Tulsa rally fakeout.)
fermienrico 6y ago
While I conceptually agree, practically - this is a naive take on protecting self interests in an altruistic externalities where if you follow such leaders, the “hawks” amongst the “doves” will wipe out the entire population of doves. Extreme take of your stance would be to say that we should hold to a higher standards and not strike back if an enemy attacks us because we are peaceful. We should strive to be peaceful, but when time comes, the response should be appropriate to the threat posed. China should be excluded from the WTO if they don’t want to play a fair game with others. I admire your righteousness though.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- framecowbird 6y ago
  I think this viewpoint can also be taken too far. "Don't be naive: if we are not aggressive then we will be wiped out" can be used to justify a lot of things.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xxpor 6y ago
We don't export democracy, we export capitalism.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  How many non-capitalist countries did the US invade/occupy/destabilize in the last 30 years?
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    What is your point? I'm asking a serious question. I really don't understand how this relates to the GP. I think the distinction between "Capitalism" as a philosophy and "US Capitalism" (ie economic ties to the US) is being confused here.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      My point is you cannot export capitalism to a country that already has it, so it has to be something else.
      - Supermancho 6y ago
        I agree. More like exporting a debt economy, which necessarily has to be capitalist at some level.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The democratically elected Salvador Allende would agree with you. So would Kissinger, I would bet.
framecowbird 6y ago
Brilliantly said!
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't. I mean, that's one theory. Here's Eric Posner: http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/why-has-holder-decided-to-try-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-in-a-civilian-court/ http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/why-has-holder-decided-to-try-k... > the Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-quality” (civilian) tier and “low-quality” (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case. > This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up. > This system is superior to the two possible one-tier systems. A pure low-quality system (military commissions only) suffers from credibility problems. People will not believe that all the people who are convicted are guilty. A pure high-quality system (civilian courts only) would result in too many acquittals. People who the government believes are dangerous will be back on the streets. The two-tiered system allows for credible convictions when credible convictions are possible, and (non-credible) convictions when credible convictions are not possible. ---------- Personally, I don't see how a system of "we'll try you according to the maximum standard of evidence by which we can 100% guarantee that we find you guilty" can be considered "credible", "reasonable", or really anything other than a "gross miscarriage of justice", but let's not just ignore what other people think.
Supermancho 6y ago
> A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one. I'm not sure why this would override prudence. > If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned. Why wouldn't a nation mitigate risk? Countries compete and work together, but there is a pattern to US and Chinese sanctioned actions. Ignoring the history in the interest of a manufactured principle is foolish. A lot of your examples (ie "you don't") do happen all the time all over the world and have throughout history. Shockingly enough, these acts are effective motivators and solutions to underlying problems, in many circumstances. Pretending that they are useless or counterproductive is probably accurate, for some circumstances as well. Not sure why that matters, other than to muddy the conversation.

AlexCoventry 6y ago

Not to mention, it's such a bad look for a President to go after companies which have played a role in amplifying free speech which attacks the President himself (Sarah Cooper, the Tulsa rally fakeout.)

fermienrico 6y ago

While I conceptually agree, practically - this is a naive take on protecting self interests in an altruistic externalities where if you follow such leaders, the “hawks” amongst the “doves” will wipe out the entire population of doves. Extreme take of your stance would be to say that we should hold to a higher standards and not strike back if an enemy attacks us because we are peaceful. We should strive to be peaceful, but when time comes, the response should be appropriate to the threat posed. China should be excluded from the WTO if they don’t want to play a fair game with others. I admire your righteousness though.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
framecowbird 6y ago
I think this viewpoint can also be taken too far. "Don't be naive: if we are not aggressive then we will be wiped out" can be used to justify a lot of things.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xxpor 6y ago

We don't export democracy, we export capitalism.

sangnoir 6y ago
How many non-capitalist countries did the US invade/occupy/destabilize in the last 30 years?
- Supermancho 6y ago
  What is your point? I'm asking a serious question. I really don't understand how this relates to the GP. I think the distinction between "Capitalism" as a philosophy and "US Capitalism" (ie economic ties to the US) is being confused here.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    My point is you cannot export capitalism to a country that already has it, so it has to be something else.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      I agree. More like exporting a debt economy, which necessarily has to be capitalist at some level.
sudosysgen 6y ago
The democratically elected Salvador Allende would agree with you. So would Kissinger, I would bet.

framecowbird 6y ago

Brilliantly said!

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't. I mean, that's one theory. Here's Eric Posner: http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/why-has-holder-decided-to-try-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-in-a-civilian-court/ http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/why-has-holder-decided-to-try-k... > the Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-quality” (civilian) tier and “low-quality” (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case. > This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up. > This system is superior to the two possible one-tier systems. A pure low-quality system (military commissions only) suffers from credibility problems. People will not believe that all the people who are convicted are guilty. A pure high-quality system (civilian courts only) would result in too many acquittals. People who the government believes are dangerous will be back on the streets. The two-tiered system allows for credible convictions when credible convictions are possible, and (non-credible) convictions when credible convictions are not possible. ---------- Personally, I don't see how a system of "we'll try you according to the maximum standard of evidence by which we can 100% guarantee that we find you guilty" can be considered "credible", "reasonable", or really anything other than a "gross miscarriage of justice", but let's not just ignore what other people think.

Supermancho 6y ago

> A democratic society should be held to a higher standard than an authoritarian one. I'm not sure why this would override prudence. > If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned. Why wouldn't a nation mitigate risk? Countries compete and work together, but there is a pattern to US and Chinese sanctioned actions. Ignoring the history in the interest of a manufactured principle is foolish. A lot of your examples (ie "you don't") do happen all the time all over the world and have throughout history. Shockingly enough, these acts are effective motivators and solutions to underlying problems, in many circumstances. Pretending that they are useless or counterproductive is probably accurate, for some circumstances as well. Not sure why that matters, other than to muddy the conversation.