6 ms·

What's being described isn't an eye for an eye, but tit for tat. And tit for tat is the norm for international relations and has been since time immemorial. Us

by User23 3y ago

What's being described isn't an eye for an eye, but tit for tat. And tit for tat is the norm for international relations and has been since time immemorial. Usually it's relatively dull stuff, like if country A requires citizens of country B to have a visa to visit, country B will as a matter of course require citizens of country A to have visas to visit too.

j_maffe 3y ago
So if China bans all American literature and news sources, the US should do the same? If China deports all Chinese Americans from their country, should the US do the same?
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > So if China bans all American literature and news sources, the US should do the same? At least their propaganda outlets, yes. > If China deports all Chinese Americans from their country, should the US do the same? No one is calling for a return to the ugly times of WW2 [1], but banning new immigration outside of asylum claims and especially banning investment into real estate certainly should be on the table. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
  - j_maffe 3y ago
    I disagree but I understand where you're coming from. There's an aspect of being an idealist vs being a realist in the final result. Perhaps some sort of balanced strategy is the way to go. Just definitely don't give leeway for governments to do shitty things (to their people and others) just because others are doing it.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      I used to be on the idealist side myself - after all, Germany has been the driving force behind the idea "change (towards democracy) by trade" - but as we've seen with Russia and China, all that did was make us completely dependent on them, and in the case of China the resulting loss of domestic production jobs led to massive issues with "left behind" areas and a loss of trust in democracy itself. In Africa, it's a similar situation - we poured in boatloads of money and aid, in exchange for the demand of a bare minimum of human rights, and now a lot of the countries there are falling to the lure of Russia and China. My personal position is, drop them. Let Russia and China deal with the mess, fail at it, and keep an open invitation once they realize that Chinese imperialism is just as bad as historic Western imperialism.
      - j_maffe 3y ago
        As someone from Africa who's currently studying in Germany, it greatly saddens me that you view the situation this way. I hope you gain a better perspective on the issue and all the suffering there.
- chaostheory 3y ago
  This isn’t a good analogy. This is about trade and not freedom or rights. The CCP, the owner of TikTok, is neither an individual nor a US citizen.
n4r9 3y ago
Interesting... "eye for an eye" has an almost identical meaning to "tit for tat" in my mind. Both of them effectively mean "retaliation in kind". One slight difference I guess is that "eye for an eye" often relates specifically to justice or just punishment.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  "Tooth for a tooth" is maybe more about exactly the same thing than "tit for tat"?
dragonwriter 3y ago
> What’s being described isn’t an eye for an eye, but tit for tat. Those are exact synonyms. > And tit for tat is the norm for international relations It’s commonly been a norm (not the norm), and its a norm that usually produces escalatory spirals, because actors tend to be more sensitive to harms to themselves from others policies and less sensitive those from other’s policy.
- User23 3y ago
  Eye for an eye connotes, if not denotes, proportionate justice. International relations, childish propaganda notwithstanding, is not at all about justice. Tit for tat on the other hand is specifically a game theory term as used here, and it applies exactly to this sort of diplomatic strategic calculation.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Eye for an eye connotes, if not denotes, proportionate justice. No, the law of retribution is not about proportionate justice. It is about retribution. It’s a association with justice is that it is seen as less unjust and a step toward justice and less socially disruptive than accepting deliberately-escalatory retribution for perceived wrongs as a norm.
yorwba 3y ago
Tit for tat makes sense in a situation where you expect to work out a deal, both sides agree to stop, and everyone is better off. E.g. allowing visa-free travel in both directions between A and B. But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the internet could end their rule overnight. So the "tat" cannot be used as a bargaining chip, but needs to be weighed on its own merits. Does the US benefit from the ability to arbitrarily declare companies to be "foreign adversaries" and shut them down or force their owners to divest? Mightn't TikTok decide to relocate their US headquarters to Europe instead? And shouldn't Chinese founders in the US see the writing on the wall and contemplate a similar move? Is that good or bad for the US?
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  > But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the internet could end their rule overnight. Sounds like it’s bad idea to freely open the door to China. > Mightn't TikTok decide to relocate their US headquarters to Europe instead? The law says they can’t exist in China, Russia, NK, Iran so this is fine. > And shouldn't Chinese founders in the US see the writing on the wall and contemplate a similar move? If they leave China, and its influence, it sounds like a clear win for the US goals. If they’re already in the US then it’s a no-op and they shouldn’t be affected because why would they?
- butlike 3y ago
  Drop "Chinese." Just..."Government." But I'm not even framing this as a malicious control thing. A society could just as easily break down if there's not some form of social...you used the word "control," I choose "framework." Paid on Friday, national holidays, do your taxes in April. You could frame these as a sort of control. Also, a country not allowing citizens to pop off about committing terroristic acts against foreign entities would mitigate the potential for said country to be labelled an "enemy" by everyone else. Diplomacy is hard, but sometimes the rules are in place for a reason. I don't know though; I've never ran a country. for the most part

by User23 3y ago

j_maffe 3y ago

So if China bans all American literature and news sources, the US should do the same? If China deports all Chinese Americans from their country, should the US do the same?

mschuster91 3y ago
> So if China bans all American literature and news sources, the US should do the same? At least their propaganda outlets, yes. > If China deports all Chinese Americans from their country, should the US do the same? No one is calling for a return to the ugly times of WW2 [1], but banning new immigration outside of asylum claims and especially banning investment into real estate certainly should be on the table. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
- j_maffe 3y ago
  I disagree but I understand where you're coming from. There's an aspect of being an idealist vs being a realist in the final result. Perhaps some sort of balanced strategy is the way to go. Just definitely don't give leeway for governments to do shitty things (to their people and others) just because others are doing it.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    I used to be on the idealist side myself - after all, Germany has been the driving force behind the idea "change (towards democracy) by trade" - but as we've seen with Russia and China, all that did was make us completely dependent on them, and in the case of China the resulting loss of domestic production jobs led to massive issues with "left behind" areas and a loss of trust in democracy itself. In Africa, it's a similar situation - we poured in boatloads of money and aid, in exchange for the demand of a bare minimum of human rights, and now a lot of the countries there are falling to the lure of Russia and China. My personal position is, drop them. Let Russia and China deal with the mess, fail at it, and keep an open invitation once they realize that Chinese imperialism is just as bad as historic Western imperialism.
    - j_maffe 3y ago
      As someone from Africa who's currently studying in Germany, it greatly saddens me that you view the situation this way. I hope you gain a better perspective on the issue and all the suffering there.
chaostheory 3y ago
This isn’t a good analogy. This is about trade and not freedom or rights. The CCP, the owner of TikTok, is neither an individual nor a US citizen.

n4r9 3y ago

Interesting... "eye for an eye" has an almost identical meaning to "tit for tat" in my mind. Both of them effectively mean "retaliation in kind". One slight difference I guess is that "eye for an eye" often relates specifically to justice or just punishment.

rightbyte 3y ago
"Tooth for a tooth" is maybe more about exactly the same thing than "tit for tat"?

dragonwriter 3y ago

> What’s being described isn’t an eye for an eye, but tit for tat. Those are exact synonyms. > And tit for tat is the norm for international relations It’s commonly been a norm (not the norm), and its a norm that usually produces escalatory spirals, because actors tend to be more sensitive to harms to themselves from others policies and less sensitive those from other’s policy.

User23 3y ago
Eye for an eye connotes, if not denotes, proportionate justice. International relations, childish propaganda notwithstanding, is not at all about justice. Tit for tat on the other hand is specifically a game theory term as used here, and it applies exactly to this sort of diplomatic strategic calculation.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Eye for an eye connotes, if not denotes, proportionate justice. No, the law of retribution is not about proportionate justice. It is about retribution. It’s a association with justice is that it is seen as less unjust and a step toward justice and less socially disruptive than accepting deliberately-escalatory retribution for perceived wrongs as a norm.

yorwba 3y ago

Tit for tat makes sense in a situation where you expect to work out a deal, both sides agree to stop, and everyone is better off. E.g. allowing visa-free travel in both directions between A and B. But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the internet could end their rule overnight. So the "tat" cannot be used as a bargaining chip, but needs to be weighed on its own merits. Does the US benefit from the ability to arbitrarily declare companies to be "foreign adversaries" and shut them down or force their owners to divest? Mightn't TikTok decide to relocate their US headquarters to Europe instead? And shouldn't Chinese founders in the US see the writing on the wall and contemplate a similar move? Is that good or bad for the US?

vineyardmike 3y ago
> But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the internet could end their rule overnight. Sounds like it’s bad idea to freely open the door to China. > Mightn't TikTok decide to relocate their US headquarters to Europe instead? The law says they can’t exist in China, Russia, NK, Iran so this is fine. > And shouldn't Chinese founders in the US see the writing on the wall and contemplate a similar move? If they leave China, and its influence, it sounds like a clear win for the US goals. If they’re already in the US then it’s a no-op and they shouldn’t be affected because why would they?
butlike 3y ago
Drop "Chinese." Just..."Government." But I'm not even framing this as a malicious control thing. A society could just as easily break down if there's not some form of social...you used the word "control," I choose "framework." Paid on Friday, national holidays, do your taxes in April. You could frame these as a sort of control. Also, a country not allowing citizens to pop off about committing terroristic acts against foreign entities would mitigate the potential for said country to be labelled an "enemy" by everyone else. Diplomacy is hard, but sometimes the rules are in place for a reason. I don't know though; I've never ran a country. for the most part