[thenanyu]

When I was in my early 20s I used to think I was very clever for pointing out apparent hypocrisies. Now I realize how easily that devolves into “you are imperfect therefore you may never criticize anything”

Americans can never call out human rights abuses because of slavery. The British can never because of colonialism. Period. Forever.

If you find this line of argumentation compelling there’s no discussing anything with you.

[epolanski]

You can easily call out way more recent stuff such as what's happening in central America right now with Colombia and Venezuela.

Sinking half a dozen ships in international waters is a crime.

Sanity would ask for intercepting those boats in your waters, and that's it, controlling what's in them, who are these people and send them in front of a court if they breached your law, on your soil (or waters).

Yet we are at the point nobody raises the voice where sinking civilian ships on the basis it's drug smugglers (without providing a proof, let alone the fact that even if it was true it's still insane) has any leftover of decency or justice.

Or calling for the annexation of Greenland and Panama by any means.

Or bombing Iran on the basis that it's developing nuclear weapons on behalf of the Israeli government (which is an act of war if Iran could wage it, the US does not get to decide who can have a nuclear weapon and who does not).

The list of breaches in decency or law is basically infinite.

[wrs]

You're not wrong, but I just wanted to point out that this level of arbitrary executive behavior and blatant massive government corruption is pretty new to us (the many millions of decent US citizens who are appalled at it), and we're still trying to figure out what the heck we can do about it. So at least for now I really hope it's valid to ascribe this just to the current administration, not assume the US will stay like this.

[torstenvl]

> Sinking half a dozen ships in international waters is a crime.

Citation needed.

[rq1]

As much as I agree with you. Iran is signatory of the NPT with all its consequences.

Instead of letting more countries develop these weapons, we should work on denuclearizing all countries, starting with the US and Russia and their insane arsenals! And maybe build a unified international legal framework for civilian nuclear developments and applications from energy to medical outside of the "security council's" ferule!

A nuclear war cannot be won, thus never fought!

[epolanski]

There's a very precise protocol when a signatory of the NPT is suspected of breaching it: first it has to go through the IAEA which has to be able to inspect whatever site, then it gets escalated to the UN, then a decision is taken, at the UN level on the matter.

Not unilaterally by Israel calling the world's superpower for help.

Your logic is as sound as "since my neighbor makes something illegal at home, I'm gonna shoot him and then call my buddy sheriff for help". It is obviously illegal.

[rq1]

Well I never advocated the latter, so please. And my logic is very sound, better than yours. :)

I was replying to "the US does not get to decide who can have a nuclear weapon and who does not". As much as I agree with that... my previous comment.

We're not talking about a nuclear program.

[ufmace]

This isn't about things that happened decades or centuries ago though. It's about how right now, today, the UK is arresting 12,000 people a year, 30 a day, for supposedly "offensive" posts on social media.

https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for...

[notahacker]

As your own article points out that stuff has been on the statute books for years (covering stuff which is generally illegal everywhere like death threats as well as stuff which was merely allegedly sent to cause others distress or anxiety) and convictions actually fell between 2015 and 2023. For all its much vaunted constitutional protections, the United States has also arrested a whole bunch of people for vague and difficult to call a crime stuff like Charlie Kirk memes or (nuanced or otherwise) criticisms of Israeli policy recently as well as more obviously menacing stuff that happened to take the form of social media communication.

Neither are quite the same thing as railroading a government critic for "sedition"

[RobotToaster]

The current UK government has arrested over 2000 people for holding signs on charges of terrorism, and is currently in the process of abolishing jury trials. This isn't about history.

[boplicity]

The UK is also not a single person, but a collection of millions of individuals and diverse groups with diverse opinions and actions.

[reactordev]

This is what they want. Everyone gasping at their actions but uninformed on what to do about it.

[boplicity]

My point is that a country may do reprehensible things, but that does not mean that the people in that country approve of those things -- or even that the people in government approve of them. Countries can be complex, with many contradictions, opinions, and opposing forces.

[0x3f]

Your examples are a bit weasely because they happened long ago, and so seem sillier. What I assumed was meant here is that, currently, the UK government is out to punish wrongthink.

[mc32]

I don't see slavery as an albatross. If anything, America accelerated its demise by its abolition at home --where America wasn't even the biggest enslaver of people; Brazil, The British empire (Caribbean), France (colonies), Russia (serfs), had way, way more slaves than the US. Today, India, China, Horn of Africa, NK have large slave populations.

[Dracophoenix]

> When I was in my early 20s I used to think I was very clever for pointing out apparent hypocrisies. Now I realize how easily that devolves into “you are imperfect therefore you may never criticize anything”.

What's the solution? The alternative, where we can't criticize our governments on account of their hypocrisies and imperfections, robs citizens of their check against an institution with a monopoly on violence.

> Americans can never call out human rights abuses because of slavery. The British can never because of colonialism. Period. Forever.

There's certainly a difference between holding countries responsible for events that have long since ceased and holding a government responsible for double standards practiced presently. The UK lacks credibility on Hong Kong when its own citizens are being jailed on the basis of overbroad hate speech regulations and when its government agencies attempt to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction over the operation of foreign social media companies. Westminister can't be so empty-headed as to believe that its actions will go unnoticed by other governments.

[avidiax]

It goes beyond just pointing out hypocrisy. This is a well known propaganda strategy called "Whataboutism." [1] It's unfortunately a tremendously effective smokescreen that divides the audience and shuts down meaningful debate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[janalsncm]

There is some nuance, because I’ve also seen genuine discussion falsely labeled as whataboutism.

If the point in bringing up the hypocrisy is to end or distract the discussion, it is whataboutism. However, if the point is to compare two instances of a thing to make a point it’s fair game imo.

[lotsofpulp]

>When I was in my early 20s I used to think I was very clever for pointing out apparent hypocrisies. Now I realize how easily that devolves into “you are imperfect therefore you may never criticize anything”

There is nothing logically wrong with hypocrisy. I tell my toddlers not to do stuff I do all the time.

The problem with hypocrisy comes when one party is assumed to have more rights than the other. In this case, why would Britain (or the US's) government be allowed to be more corrupt than China's?

I assume Britain is brought up due to the British government's historic role in Hong Kong and China.

[mig39]

Is it whatboutism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism