3 ms·

> I think the UK and US should abstain from criticising any countries' courts and justice system after that... Couldn't disagree more. By this logic, no countr

> I think the UK and US should abstain from criticising any countries' courts and justice system after that... Couldn't disagree more. By this logic, no country should criticize any other country's courts and justice systems because they all have problems and massive miscarriages of justice. Do we want more scrutiny and criticism or less? I think the world is better if the US and UK aggressively criticize and pressure other countries to improve AND ALSO everyone else criticizes abuses by the US and UK and pressures them to improve. IMO that is a much better world than one where nobody is highlighting abuses or asking anyone else to improve.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
Abuse is always highlighted (or minimised) because of ulterior motives, not because of the abuse itself. What I am highlighting is the hypocrisy.
- heylook 2y ago
  > Abuse is always highlighted (or minimised) because of ulterior motives, not because of the abuse itself. That strikes me as almost tautologically untrue. It simply doesn't seem possible that every decision about how much to highlight or criticize or ignore a country's abuse of their legal system could be based upon ulterior motives. It implies that there can never be genuine moral outrage, and honestly, for me, that just makes your whole point and outlook feel unfounded or uncommonly sad. For example, how much of the criticism of Otto Warmbier's detention in North Korea is based upon ulterior motives? Is it all of it? Or is it like, 50% or 10% or less? And if it's a smaller amount, are you actually highlighting a hypocrisy that is meaningful enough for it to be the main thrust of your comment? It feels like someone cooked you a gourmet meal and you said, "Food only ever tastes good or bad because of the salt."
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    There is no moral when it comes to national interests, that's correct.
- brookst 2y ago
  Well if you object to the hypocrisy and want to advocate for something unlikely to happen, wouldn’t it make more sense to say the US and UK should stop doing bad things, rather than that they should stop criticizing other countries for doing bad things?
h0l0cube 2y ago
When it comes to questioning another’s moral standing, it helps to have a leg to stand on
raxxorraxor 2y ago
They indeed should do that and then maybe not use lawfare and unjust measures themselves. But it is indeed questionable, why someone should submit to such pressure if there are no consequences in this case either.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

Abuse is always highlighted (or minimised) because of ulterior motives, not because of the abuse itself. What I am highlighting is the hypocrisy.

heylook 2y ago
> Abuse is always highlighted (or minimised) because of ulterior motives, not because of the abuse itself. That strikes me as almost tautologically untrue. It simply doesn't seem possible that every decision about how much to highlight or criticize or ignore a country's abuse of their legal system could be based upon ulterior motives. It implies that there can never be genuine moral outrage, and honestly, for me, that just makes your whole point and outlook feel unfounded or uncommonly sad. For example, how much of the criticism of Otto Warmbier's detention in North Korea is based upon ulterior motives? Is it all of it? Or is it like, 50% or 10% or less? And if it's a smaller amount, are you actually highlighting a hypocrisy that is meaningful enough for it to be the main thrust of your comment? It feels like someone cooked you a gourmet meal and you said, "Food only ever tastes good or bad because of the salt."
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  There is no moral when it comes to national interests, that's correct.
brookst 2y ago
Well if you object to the hypocrisy and want to advocate for something unlikely to happen, wouldn’t it make more sense to say the US and UK should stop doing bad things, rather than that they should stop criticizing other countries for doing bad things?

h0l0cube 2y ago

When it comes to questioning another’s moral standing, it helps to have a leg to stand on

raxxorraxor 2y ago

They indeed should do that and then maybe not use lawfare and unjust measures themselves. But it is indeed questionable, why someone should submit to such pressure if there are no consequences in this case either.