5 ms·

I get your point, and I sympathize. But it is absolutely not cynical to assume that for each criminal person (forget politicians) who gets caught and charged,

I get your point, and I sympathize. But it is absolutely not cynical to assume that for each criminal person (forget politicians) who gets caught and charged, there are almost certainly more who didn't get caught or didn't get charged. It is not cynical to assume that law enforcement has a less than perfect ability to prosecute criminals; it's just realistic. Rather, it is naive to assume otherwise: What process, in any domain, has a 100% success rate? Note: I'm not taking the "all politicians are corrupt" position, just "it is almost certainly true that corrupt politicians are often able to get away with their corruption". So, maybe we're not actually talking about the same thing. Corrupt politicians, it seems, are like cockroaches: if you've confirmed the existence of one, then there are certainly several whose presence is as yet unconfirmed.

vintermann 4y ago
It's also probably selective about what you are corrupt for. Being corrupt for Qatar was probably safe, until it wasn't for extremely stupid reasons.
solarkraft 4y ago
Yes, but the trick is not not looking. This is a lot better than the corruption being widely known and nothing being done against it (can you guess which country I'm thinking of?). This sends the signal that in Europe, corruption can come back to hurt you.
- routerl 4y ago
  > This sends the signal that in Europe, corruption can come back to hurt you. Nah, it just creates an in-group ("we know that corrupt politicians can get away with it"), and an out-group ("let's avoid corruption, since we'll get caught"). > the trick is not not looking Unintentional double negative there, I think.
  - cespare 4y ago
    Seems intentional. "The trick is not [ignoring the bad thing]".
    - routerl 4y ago
      I considered that, but it doesn't cohere with "This is a lot better than the corruption being widely known". That is, the poster I was replying to seemed to be advocating "don't investigate, or else corruption will be widely known, even though nothing is done against it". Anyway, regardless of their intended meaning, my point about in- and out-groups stands.
      - solarkraft 4y ago
        Consider: "and nothing being done against it" :-) You interpreted it pretty differently from what I mean: Investigation-less corruption is often unofficially known/suspected, but can't be acted on. Investiation enables acting on it. Of course the laws need to he tight on corruption in the first place. The kinds of corruption seen in the US are typically perfectly legal (we also have loopholes that should be closed, which makes me wonder why people often choose the illegal forms of corruption).

vintermann 4y ago

It's also probably selective about what you are corrupt for. Being corrupt for Qatar was probably safe, until it wasn't for extremely stupid reasons.

solarkraft 4y ago

Yes, but the trick is not not looking. This is a lot better than the corruption being widely known and nothing being done against it (can you guess which country I'm thinking of?). This sends the signal that in Europe, corruption can come back to hurt you.

routerl 4y ago
> This sends the signal that in Europe, corruption can come back to hurt you. Nah, it just creates an in-group ("we know that corrupt politicians can get away with it"), and an out-group ("let's avoid corruption, since we'll get caught"). > the trick is not not looking Unintentional double negative there, I think.
- cespare 4y ago
  Seems intentional. "The trick is not [ignoring the bad thing]".
  - routerl 4y ago
    I considered that, but it doesn't cohere with "This is a lot better than the corruption being widely known". That is, the poster I was replying to seemed to be advocating "don't investigate, or else corruption will be widely known, even though nothing is done against it". Anyway, regardless of their intended meaning, my point about in- and out-groups stands.
    - solarkraft 4y ago
      Consider: "and nothing being done against it" :-) You interpreted it pretty differently from what I mean: Investigation-less corruption is often unofficially known/suspected, but can't be acted on. Investiation enables acting on it. Of course the laws need to he tight on corruption in the first place. The kinds of corruption seen in the US are typically perfectly legal (we also have loopholes that should be closed, which makes me wonder why people often choose the illegal forms of corruption).