I have to ask: did you read what I wrote before you replied to me? I know the question might come across as an attack, but it's not. I'm genuinely curious about what process lead to your comment being a reply to mine, when mine explicitly states the following:

> Those people you are replying to are not saying that this soldier should get away with his corruption because more powerful people are getting away with theirs. They are saying that those who abuse greater power are doing greater harm, and that their corruption should be punished with greater urgency.

▲

scoofy 2 days ago | parent [-]

I did read it. Your point is effectively irrelevant. It means the same thing. Creating an "urgency chain" is effectively the same thing as justifying behavior.

It's like saying "we shouldn't worry about enforcing traffic laws because we need to use our resources to bring war criminals to justice" when the reason where not bringing war criminals to justice isn't for lack of concern, it's just that we have no coercive power.

Caring about prioritizing things where we do not have coercive power is pointless.

▲

davidguetta a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Creating an "urgency chain" is effectively the same thing as justifying behavior.

What ? we SHOULD ABSOLUTELY create an urgency chain

▲

CodeMage 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's like saying "we shouldn't worry about enforcing traffic laws because we need to use our resources to bring war criminals to justice"

It most definitely isn't. At no point did anyone in this discussion say "we shouldn't worry about small time corruption". In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. And then I highlighted it after you essentially accused me of doing so, as you're doing again.

> Creating an "urgency chain" is effectively the same thing as justifying behavior.

No, it's not. No one is "creating" an "urgency chain". Justice isn't binary. Things can be more or less just, they're not either perfectly just or completely unjust with nothing in between. Similarly, different people have different levels of impact. That's the definition of power in this context: the level of impact your actions have. No one is "creating" these concepts out of thin air.

What is happening here is that people are complaining about injustice and other people -- like you and the person I initially replied to -- are trying to delegitimize those complaints by stating that "all corruption is bad".

Let me repeat this, in case it got lost despite earlier repetitions: yes, we all know that "all corruption is bad". Just like we all know that "all lives matter", but pointing out that banality only got popular after the "black lives matter" slogan surfaced in response to a systemic injustice against African Americans.

You're doing the same kind of thing here.

> Caring about prioritizing things where we do not have coercive power is pointless.

On the contrary. If you always give up on caring because you don't have coercive power, you will never rectify injustices caused by imbalance of coercive power.

	▲	Schiendelman a day ago \| parent [-]
		I want you to know that you are making sense, and I appreciate how calmly and constructively you're engaging. :)