...and the west lectures Russia and China!

[ks.234]

That’s not a supportable argument. Can you name one dictatorship that has not become a menace to its own people and neighbouring states? I can name lots of democracies that haven’t.

The democracies that fail that test are ones that approach dictatorship, with power tightly controlled in an elite that is hard to dislodge. The UK and USA fall into that category, with unrepresentative electoral systems that encourage and over-reward extremist positions.

No. You are changing the argument and twisting my words. I am not saying that dictatorships do not represent a menace, or that some democracies do not.

What I have said is that democracy has not prevented the most vile and heinous threats to its own citizens, the outside world, and ironically, democracy itself.

That argument is supported by a brief look at the history of indigenous Indians and Black Americans at home, turning various nation states into ‘Banana republics’ by US companies in collusion with the US State, the overthrow of several democracies in Latin America, the invasions of Iraq for commercial interests and what was supposed to be the topic of this thread, which has implications for global security, Guantanamo Bay.

What is happening in Guantanamo Bay is criminal.

Surprised at how much deflection from that central fact has been going on here.

 

[ks.234]

Of course I condemn what is happening in Guantanamo Bay, as I've indicated above. That said, I don't think debating with you is going to achieve much for either of us. And thanks for the put-down re Moral Relativism.

But you have not condemned Guantanamo Bay. You have mostly spoken about Putin.

 

[gustavm]

But you have not condemned Guantanamo Bay. You have mostly spoken about Putin.

See reply to Droozila

 

[KrisW]

No. You are changing the argument and twisting my words. I am not saying that dictatorships do not represent a menace, or that some democracies do not.

I am only reading your words as written. I fully accept that that may not have been the thought you wanted to express when you wrote them, but what you wrote clearly made the claim that there exist democracies that are more likely to be a menace to their own people than any dictatorship has been, and that’s an unsupportable claim without some solid examples.

And just because something describes itself as a “democracy” does not make it one. North Korea would like us to think that it is both a democracy and a republic, when all but the most deluded can see that it is in fact an absolute monarchy with the Kim family as the hereditary rulers. The banana-republics you refer to were and are dictatorships, despite what they claimed to be: any system of government with concentrated power will tend toward tyranny (which is why we use that Greek word for an absolute ruler to describe an oppressive regime).

I made no comment on Guantanamo, as I was specifically addressing the claim you made. That doesn’t mean I disagree with you; only that I disagree with the use of hyperbole in place of argument. I’m not trying to deflect anything, so if you want clarification, here it is: What the USA has done at Guantanamo and in Iraq itself is as evil as anything that its enemies have perpetrated - it is the torture of innocent civilians by an occupying army, and as such it is a war crime of the same seriousness (if not scale) as those committed by Russia right now in Ukraine. It is a disgrace, and it is abhorrent to the ideals that the US proclaims itself to be the guardian of. And no government in “the West” is entirely innocent in its perpetration.

Speaking about deflection, the title of this topic is an exercise in just that. As I said earlier, it’s possible for the USA to do evil things, while still espousing the right position on other matters; the virtue of the person making the declaration does not affect its truth. There is no such thing as being entirely virtuous: anyone who claims to be morally unimpeachable is just better at keeping secrets than you or I.

 

[Seanm]

Speaking about deflection, the title of this topic is an exercise in just that. As I said earlier, it’s possible for the USA to do evil things, while still espousing the right position on other matters; the virtue of the person making the declaration does not affect its truth. There is no such thing as being entirely virtuous: anyone who claims to be morally unimpeachable is just better at keeping secrets than you or I.

Nobody's perfect? Again this seems like the wrong lesson to take from the revelation that one state is engaging in the same practices it condemns another for. I'm sure you don't mean to do it but the logic at work is that of apologism.

 

[KrisW]

Nobody's perfect? Again this seems like the wrong lesson to take from the revelation that one state is engaging in the same practices it condemns another for. I'm sure you don't mean to do it but the logic at work is that of apologism.

That comment is directed at the thread title, which is doing exactly what you have just accused me of. My thoughts about the US government’s actions are right there in the same post you quoted; if you still feel able to paint me as an apologist for the US after reading them, I really don’t know what to say to you.

 

[gustavm]

That comment is directed at the thread title, which is doing exactly what you have just accused me of. My thoughts about the US government’s actions are right there in the same post you quoted; if you still feel able to paint me as an apologist for the US after reading them, I really don’t know what to say to you.

Indeed - if the thread title were "Disgusting Torture Carried Out by USA officials" or something similar, then we'd probably be pretty much in agreement. (Any discussion might then be about protest or other action.) But the title was not that, and actually raises an important point about the degree to which we in the West, with our own less than perfect histories, should be able to comment or attempt to influence other nations. I happen to believe Putin's Russia represents a real current existential threat to civilisation as we know it (and since mentioned in the thread title, China, is even more potentially dangerous). Hence I believe it is vital not to deflect in any way from fulsome & robust criticsm of such regimes. (Not suggesting anyone here is, merely offering an explanation as to why much of the recent discussion on this thread seems at such cross-purposes)

It would of course be easier to make such points from a position of high moral authority, but I don't think that really exists in International politics, which is a very murky business, forcing the need for alliances with all kinds of dubious regimes.

 

[Seanm]

That comment is directed at the thread title, which is doing exactly what you have just accused me of. My thoughts about the US government’s actions are right there in the same post you quoted; if you still feel able to paint me as an apologist for the US after reading them, I really don’t know what to say to you.

Well, you could say that you disagree with what I've said about the underlying logic of your argument. I'm not trying to paint you as anything but you've taken a position here. Your feelings about torture are neither here nor there: if you insist that a state can do it *without losing its moral authority* as a consequence, that's apologism.

The thread title isn't a deflection. It's an acknowledgement that it's impossible for the US to continue to frame its relations with Russia and China as a moral crusade, given what it does, given what we know. That's a good thing IMO because it requires us to abandon moralism as a frame for understanding what states are and what they do. It also requires those who want to take a stand against the actions of Russia, China or anyone else to make their case without recourse to fairytales. That really ought to be do-able.

 

[davidsrsb]

Can you name one dictatorship that has not become a menace to its own people and neighbouring states?

Plenty, mostly smaller absolute monarchies eg Monaco, and in the ME.
I say monarchy or totally rigged democracy = dictatorship
The key feature is small, so no threat to anyone

 

[KrisW]

Well, you could say that you disagree with what I've said about the underlying logic of your argument. I'm not trying to paint you as anything but you've taken a position here.

I don’t know what position you think I’ve taken, but it doesn’t sound like my views. I’ll try explain better.

I did not mention “moral authority” at all, except to suggest that maybe it doesn’t exist. But I’ll be clearer about that: Moral authority is a bullshit concept. It’s either an ad hominem fallacy (if a “bad” state calls attention to an evil and you want to discredit them) or an appeal to authority (when a “good” state calls attention to an evil, and you support them) - either way it’s fallacious. Either something is bad or not. When Vladimir Putin talks about US cops disproportionately killing Black men, I know that he’s only saying it to make the USA look bad, and that Russia has its own race and police violence problems; however, it doesn’t stop the fact that what is being said is true and that it is morally just to call attention to it, even though the messenger is not in any way moral.

If Mother Teresa* had told me that Hindus were bad people, she might have done so with “moral authority” (again, though, that asterisk), but it would still be prejudicial bullshit. (* Mother Teresa, long revered as the quintessentially “good” person, was found to have many failings, and a few skeletons and some regrettably fascist friendships). [ I’m not aware if she ever said any such thing, by the way - I made it up as an just an example ]

In the end, moral authority is a perception, and highly subjective. The Moral Authority of the President of the USA created the 2003 Iraq war, and we’re still living with the fallout of that shitshow twenty years later.

The thread title isn't a deflection.

Yes it is. It’s the classic “whatabout” argument, and it stinks of apologism. We can rightly criticise Russia or China’s human rights record, but whatabout Guantanamo? Eh? Eh? Well, what about it? It’s also bad. The existence of evil in one place does not preclude the existence of evil elsewhere. I can oppose many bad things at one time; I have no loyalties. I will concede though that the Guantanamo example is more hypocritical - neither China nor Russia have claimed to be the great saviours of human rights, but hypocrisy is a tiny crime, and people harping on about the US being hypocritical should direct their ire at the actual crime: the torture of civilians.

But I don’t know why people are even surprised about it.. the 1960s and 1970s showed that the USA has always played fast and loose with the idea of human rights. I never thought the USA was a utopian society, and was convinced of that once I’d been there for more than a week. In a long career in an industry dominated by US companies, some of whom I worked for, I have assiduously avoided having to live there, despite the very large financial incentives of moving, for the same reasons I’d never work in any of the Persian Gulf kingdoms.

It's an acknowledgement that it's impossible for the US to continue to frame its relations with Russia and China as a moral crusade, given what it does, given what we know. That's a good thing IMO because it requires us to abandon moralism as a frame for understanding what states are and what they do. It also requires those who want to take a stand against the actions of Russia, China or anyone else to make their case without recourse to fairytales. That really ought to be do-able.

Right here, we are in agreement. I just find it odd that you don’t see the the contradiction of the thread title, which as an example of the exact thing you’re arguing against. But I’ll say it again: the crime of hypocrisy pales into insignificance compared with the actual crime of abducting and torturing non-combatant civilians. Shouting about the US’s hypocrisy, as this thread title does, is turning peoples outrage toward the wrong target.

@davidsrsb - do you really mean Middle East by “ME”? If so, I can’t agree. Those small Gulf states are nasty places to live in - one wrong step, offend the wrong relative of some prince, and you’re in jail for not being able to pay a ridiculously large fine for some tiny misdemeanour.

 

[Seanm]

I don’t know what position you think I’ve taken, but it doesn’t sound like my views. I’ll try explain better.

I did not mention “moral authority” at all, except to suggest that maybe it doesn’t exist. But I’ll be clearer about that: Moral authority is a bullshit concept. It’s either an ad hominem fallacy (if a “bad” state calls attention to an evil and you want to discredit them) or an appeal to authority (when a “good” state calls attention to an evil, and you support them) - either way it’s fallacious. Either something is bad or not. When Vladimir Putin talks about US cops disproportionately killing Black men, I know that he’s only saying it to make the USA look bad, and that Russia has its own race and police violence problems; however, it doesn’t stop the fact that what is being said is true and that it is morally just to call attention to it, even though the messenger is not in any way moral.

If Mother Teresa* had told me that Hindus were bad people, she might have done so with “moral authority” (again, though, that asterisk), but it would still be prejudicial bullshit. (* Mother Teresa, long revered as the quintessentially “good” person, was found to have many failings, and a few skeletons and some regrettably fascist friendships). [ I’m not aware if she ever said any such thing, by the way - I made it up as an just an example ]

In the end, moral authority is a perception, and highly subjective. The Moral Authority of the President of the USA created the 2003 Iraq war, and we’re still living with the fallout of that shitshow twenty years later.


Yes it is. It’s the classic “whatabout” argument, and it stinks of apologism. We can rightly criticise Russia or China’s human rights record, but whatabout Guantanamo? Eh? Eh? Well, what about it? It’s also bad. The existence of evil in one place does not preclude the existence of evil elsewhere. I can oppose many bad things at one time; I have no loyalties. I will concede though that the Guantanamo example is more hypocritical - neither China nor Russia have claimed to be the great saviours of human rights, but hypocrisy is a tiny crime, and people harping on about the US being hypocritical should direct their ire at the actual crime: the torture of civilians.

But I don’t know why people are even surprised about it.. the 1960s and 1970s showed that the USA has always played fast and loose with the idea of human rights. I never thought the USA was a utopian society, and was convinced of that once I’d been there for more than a week. In a long career in an industry dominated by US companies, some of whom I worked for, I have assiduously avoided having to live there, despite the very large financial incentives of moving, for the same reasons I’d never work in any of the Persian Gulf kingdoms.


Right here, we are in agreement. I just find it odd that you don’t see the the contradiction of the thread title, which as an example of the exact thing you’re arguing against. But I’ll say it again: the crime of hypocrisy pales into insignificance compared with the actual crime of abducting and torturing non-combatant civilians. Shouting about the US’s hypocrisy, as this thread title does, is turning peoples outrage toward the wrong target.

@davidsrsb - do you really mean Middle East by “ME”? If so, I can’t agree. Those small Gulf states are nasty places to live in - one wrong step, offend the wrong relative of some prince, and you’re in jail for not being able to pay a ridiculously large fine for some tiny misdemeanour.

We’re not talking about the crime of hypocrisy though, we’re talking about the crime of torture. Doing it dissolves the moral authority of the US, which is a good thing, because as you point out, it tends to use moral authority (aka humanitarianism) to support disastrous and murderous foreign policy. So pointing out the loss of moral authority, as the thread title does, is good, and not whataboutism, or a deflection, or an attempt to magically absolve Russia and China of their crimes. That only follows if you do actually think the case against these crimes can only be made from a position of moral authority.

 

[ks.234]

I am only reading your words as written. I fully accept that that may not have been the thought you wanted to express when you wrote them, but what you wrote clearly made the claim that there exist democracies that are more likely to be a menace to their own people than any dictatorship has been, and that’s an unsupportable claim without some solid examples.

I have given solid examples. There was also an entire thread doing the same

And just because something describes itself as a “democracy” does not make it one. North Korea would like us to think that it is both a democracy and a republic, when all but the most deluded can see that it is in fact an absolute monarchy with the Kim family as the hereditary rulers.

I haven’t mentioned NK

The banana-republics you refer to were and are dictatorships

No, Guatemala had an elected leadership. Besides, not being a democracy does not make a country fair game for exploitation and ruin. Allende in Chile was also elected, but the US put Pinochet in power instead.

despite what they claimed to be: any system of government with concentrated power will tend toward tyranny (which is why we use that Greek word for an absolute ruler to describe an oppressive regime).

Not true. Many have not.

I made no comment on Guantanamo, as I was specifically addressing the claim you made. That doesn’t mean I disagree with you; only that I disagree with the use of hyperbole in place of argument.

I have not used hyperbole in place of argument

I’m not trying to deflect anything, so if you want clarification, here it is: What the USA has done at Guantanamo and in Iraq itself is as evil as anything that its enemies have perpetrated - it is the torture of innocent civilians by an occupying army, and as such it is a war crime of the same seriousness (if not scale) as those committed by Russia right now in Ukraine. It is a disgrace, and it is abhorrent to the ideals that the US proclaims itself to be the guardian of. And no government in “the West” is entirely innocent in its perpetration.

Then we agree

Speaking about deflection, the title of this topic is an exercise in just that. As I said earlier, it’s possible for the USA to do evil things, while still espousing the right position on other matters; the virtue of the person making the declaration does not affect its truth. There is no such thing as being entirely virtuous: anyone who claims to be morally unimpeachable is just better at keeping secrets than you or I.

The title is not deflection, it is a sign of the hypocrisy that all states mete out for political purpose.