26 ms·

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 countr

• 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).