Perhaps you can explain further what you think she meant, since you have objected to my interpretation as being so off-base.
Read post 292.
I think she believes that the current policy towards Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other consistent human rights violators should change and involve some level of consequences for these violations. As do I. I’m not sure what exact level of consequences she’d support, but I expect she’d be open to discussion on these sorts of details.
Then it sounds to me like you don’t really disagree with what she’s advocating for, unless it’s within this very narrow, specific interpretation that I see no reason to be more likely than my more charitable and open-minded one.
Are you fucking kidding me? That’s what I’ve been saying that she was saying, and you just spent several posts telling me how wrong I am. Is this some kind of joke?
I don’t get it. In post 292 you seemed open to this, a nuanced level of consequences for these violations. Which is what I think Omar is advocating for. I thought your criticism was that you think she’s saying we should treat them exactly like we treat Iran.
Nuance is hard, but it doesn’t have to be this hard.
You literally accused me of “extrapolating in what appears to me to be the most negative possible interpretation” and that “Holding them to the same standards doesn’t mean treating them exactly the same” when you and I both said that she wants to punish Egypt like how Iran gets punished.
So again, is this all some kind of put-on? You accuse me of trying to make her look bad by giving a plain reading to what she wrote, but you and I actually are in total agreement on what she wrote?
Did you ever actually read any of my posts?
I never said that she was saying we should treat them exactly like Iran.
Now I’m really confused. I’ll try and lay out my understanding of our disagreement as simply as I can:
Your position is that Omar thinks we should treat Egypt and Saudi Arabia exactly like we treat Iran, and that this is a foolish position. Is this right?
My position is that Omar thinks Egypt and Saudi Arabia (and others) currently face no consequences for violations of human rights, and that they should face some consequences, though I see no reason to believe she thinks we should treat them exactly as we do Iran. Further, I think her position is actually quite close to what you advocate in the last paragraph of post 292.
It’s pretty hard to engage in a good-faith debate with this kind of double-talk going on.
It’s clear to me that you’ve determined that I’m wrong no matter what I have said, probably because I’m not a fan of Rep. Omar, and therefore if you, she, and I all say “the sky is blue!” then I must be saying so for the wrong reasons.
I have never seen people in such agreement so angry with one another :). Can it be chalked up to an honest misunderstanding and move on?
Apologies for wherever I went wrong. I was sincerely trying for a discussion and apparently I failed.
I’m happy to try again to explain what I think is the point of our disagreement, if you’re open to it, but if not, I just apologize for however I miscommunicated my point. I’m sincerely and honestly trying, but apparently I’ve failed so far.
May I offer an analogy?
Let’s say there are two mob bosses, Jones and Smith. Jones is cooperating with the FBI to put other mob bosses away. Smith isn’t.
The FBI is doing their best to destroy Smith’s mob, take down all his flunkies. But they’re leaving Jones’s mob alone, on the basis that he’s offering them enough help that they can overlook his criminal network and its ongoing campaign of violence.
A new agent comes in and says, “I know Jones is helping us, but we can’t let him continue to commit crimes! Maybe we cut him a little slack, but he’s continuing to murder, extort, and otherwise flout the law; how is that okay?”
Omar is the new agent. Jones is Saudi Arabia. Smith is Iran.
Is this a fair analogy for events?
I think it’s fair, broadly speaking.
Thank you, thee sorts of misunderstandings can happen. I got very frustrated there.
As for the analogy, I agree that is pretty good. But Special Agent Omar’s perspective could be too narrow in some cases: she may be right to question why we are letting Jones continue his protection racket.
But US Attorney… Somebody… may have the view that Smith is a far greater danger to the community, and that to take down the murderous Smith gang, we have to hold our noses for Jones’ serious crimes of arsons on various businesses who aren’t paying up.
This I think is an extremely difficult ethical question, to which a simple “We should hold Jones and Smith to the same standard” is totally inadequate to resolve. That “solution” could be: just a cheap political shot at the US Attorney; an earnest recommendation to get tough on Jones even with the risk of losing the case against Smith; hope that we can call Jones’ bluff and get the best of both worlds; or evidence that the Special Agent doesn’t really understand all the issues in play.
Wapo has a pay wall. I dont consider them a cite
There was no apology. “I am sorry for you if you feel offended” is not a apology, in fact it makes things worse.
nifty
Use private mode. Unless you have a different reason.
There’s two things:
- Is it an extremely difficult ethical situation? Sure.
- Is “We should hold Jones and Smith to the same standard” a valid stance? Absolutely. It’s just as valid as “We should cut Jones some slack so that we accomplish our other goals.”
In fact, this distinction–between “start with principles and work from there” and “you have to take real-world factors into account, even if it means bending principles”–is one of the major debates in ethics. It’s unfair, in my opinion, to describe EITHER perspective as “simple.”
I tend toward the view that we’re far too soft on our allies, and that we tend to ally with people when it’s profitable for the in-power class to do so. I tend toward the view that realpolitik inevitably gets corrupted by folks in power, and that we need to center human rights above most other concerns, and sacrifice principles to human rights only when doing so obviously results in a greater benefit to human rights.
But I recognize that this isn’t a simple debate, on either side.
In this hypothetical we are talking about, what does it mean to “hold Jones and Smith to the same standard?”
I think a good deal of confusion is rooted in the fact that she has English as a second language. Her thoughts might well be clearer than her prose, one can only hope. By comparison, such worthies as Rep. Goober and Rep. King don’t even have English as a first language, but the intent of their words is appallingly clear.
Analogies are gonna break down if you get too granular on them–but it might, for example, mean that we don’t turn a blind eye toward continuing serious crimes. It might mean saying, “Look, we’re gonna let you get away with that brothel you were running, but it breaks the law, and next time we come back, if it’s still operational, we’re gonna raid it and prosecute you, so, y’know, heads up.”
On an international level, we might say, “Look, we know there have been serious human rights abuses in your past, but it violates our foreign policy to continue to give aid to nations that don’t have plans to improve their human rights record. Let’s sit down and talk about what that would look like.”
When we’re choosing allies, it might look like prioritizing alliances with nations with good human rights records, over alliances with nations that have favorable trade deals with us.