3 ms·

They probably just meant to say extortion, since the OECD isn’t threatening to release any damaging information about the US. :) That said, to your point, by d

They probably just meant to say extortion, since the OECD isn’t threatening to release any damaging information about the US. :) That said, to your point, by definition a nation or group of nations can never commit extortion. They can treat other countries miserably and completely refuse to trade, if they want, and go to war if they choose to. Individuals have more restrictions on their interactions with others.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lovich 5y ago
I think I quibble with that definition still. Something like the US sailing up to Japan and forcing them to trade at gunpoint would still be extortion but refusing to let you into their borders unless you comply with certain criteria is not. I noticed this sort of illogical argument that preventing access to a market was aggression with the GDPR drama as well. Americans(I say as one) seem to be completely incapable of handling when other countries use access to their markets in negotiations despite the US using that lever constantly.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Certainly—I’d say it comes down to the necessity of access to the market in question, for the company or country outside of it. It quickly becomes subjective, hence the blindness to one’s own demands.
  - lovich 5y ago
    It’s literally not subjective. It’s their own land and country. The only way you can treat removing access to it as extortion or blackmail is if you feel you have a legitimate claim to it in which case you are by definition not recognizing their sovereignty. That’s a position you can(and many countries have) take, but it’s an oxymoron to recognize a countries sovereignty and also expect a claim to their sovereign lands
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      Right, I started the thread by saying that. I tried to neutrally describe the double standard citizens of some countries have. If you mean we should expect everyone to forgo holding opinions that benefit them selfishly: perhaps, but any success wouldn’t last past the next perceived opportunity or threat.
      - lovich 5y ago
        Reading through my previous reply I think I came off as accusatory when I said “you”. I meant that as in a general royal you type sense, not you in particular. I do understand you are trying to describe their double standard. I guess my point is that we don’t have to mangle the language and redefine words just because they have a double standard. They can call it blackmail and extortion all they want but it’s not something we should go along with
        1123581321 5y ago
        Gotcha. I shouldn’t have responded defensively either. I share the desire for accurate language.
goodpoint 5y ago
> just meant to say extortion "just"?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lovich 5y ago

I think I quibble with that definition still. Something like the US sailing up to Japan and forcing them to trade at gunpoint would still be extortion but refusing to let you into their borders unless you comply with certain criteria is not. I noticed this sort of illogical argument that preventing access to a market was aggression with the GDPR drama as well. Americans(I say as one) seem to be completely incapable of handling when other countries use access to their markets in negotiations despite the US using that lever constantly.

1123581321 5y ago
Certainly—I’d say it comes down to the necessity of access to the market in question, for the company or country outside of it. It quickly becomes subjective, hence the blindness to one’s own demands.
- lovich 5y ago
  It’s literally not subjective. It’s their own land and country. The only way you can treat removing access to it as extortion or blackmail is if you feel you have a legitimate claim to it in which case you are by definition not recognizing their sovereignty. That’s a position you can(and many countries have) take, but it’s an oxymoron to recognize a countries sovereignty and also expect a claim to their sovereign lands
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Right, I started the thread by saying that. I tried to neutrally describe the double standard citizens of some countries have. If you mean we should expect everyone to forgo holding opinions that benefit them selfishly: perhaps, but any success wouldn’t last past the next perceived opportunity or threat.
    - lovich 5y ago
      Reading through my previous reply I think I came off as accusatory when I said “you”. I meant that as in a general royal you type sense, not you in particular. I do understand you are trying to describe their double standard. I guess my point is that we don’t have to mangle the language and redefine words just because they have a double standard. They can call it blackmail and extortion all they want but it’s not something we should go along with
      - 1123581321 5y ago
        Gotcha. I shouldn’t have responded defensively either. I share the desire for accurate language.

goodpoint 5y ago

> just meant to say extortion "just"?