2 ms·
If there’s no need to ‘single out’ China then there’s no need to ‘single out’ doping in cycling, and no need to ‘single out’ this one particular Stanford Presid
by merman 3y ago
If there’s no need to ‘single out’ China then there’s no need to ‘single out’ doping in cycling, and no need to ‘single out’ this one particular Stanford President researcher, etc. The objective of your comment, that I am pointing out, is that you are hand-waving corruption in Chinese politics away by saying “but what about…”
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoI agree with that. If we hand-wave away all cases, then we never tamp them down. Corruption would continue to grow. So, we should call out all cases. Even if there are so many cases to cause one to become tired of the fight. Maybe I was just reacting that in todays world the lines have blurred enough that it is sometimes hard to tell if you are fighting corruption, or if you have become the corruption. From different points of view both these are correct: "The US experienced a Coup attempt by a president that then did not suffer any consequences for his un-constitutional actions" or "The President, fighting for the American Way against the corrupt deep state government attempted to bypass a fake election to continue his quest to root out evil? "