Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

Balkans are kinda OK nowadays. Turkey doesn't plan to invade. No Austro-Hungary to mess with it. No outright hostility between Balkan countries (barring Serbia vs everyone). Fewer religious conflicts as countries in the region become more and more secular.

The only problem is Serbian imperialism and revanchism. Luckily, Serbs have no ability to mess with NATO

[Strongpoint]

Meanwhile, Amnesty International says that the Ukrainian army should move into the open field parroting Russian propaganda about using civilians as meatshields. *facepalms*

[Starver]

Not heard what they've been saying. (In general, I feel their heart is in the right place, but hard to know where they are most ideologically influenced in such edge-cases.) ...I hope they also have something to say about Russia using undepleted uranium 'shields'. Though have no doubt that anything they say that doesn't help the Russians will be entirely ignored by them. (Predicting that your described issue will be folded straight back into Russian media as causus beli post facto for why Ukraine is the bad guy.)

[EuchreJack]

I think Amnesty International falls victim to Ivory Tower thinking.  The sort of true idiocy that is only possible with 3 PhDs.

[Starver]

I think they do a useful job, highlighting the issues of both distant despotic regimes (that may otherwise never find a public forum to produce a much needed visible international rebuke) and problems back home in the 'free' world that rightfully discredit the ideals we'd like to promote.

But activism-led agenda lends itself to an uneven assessment of what's wrong in the world that needs careful handling. Just as a suppressed minority deep in the heart of some deliberately inaccessible region of a totalitarian country can benefit (relatively!) from the news being smuggled out into the wider world, to pressure the inarguably terrible government that sanctions the suppression, the same 'leaks' can be engineered by a trouble-stirring party to alter the prominence of issues to try to be what-about-ist and thus downgrade more egregious crimes/institutionalising just a short hop over a fence.


Better to have them, than not, but I don't know how good their internal governance is, or how they peer review against political pressures both overt and covert.

[Strongpoint]

I never liked the Amnesty International, they always tend to downplay human rights violations in China\Russia\Saudi Arabia\etc and blow out of proportion human rights violations in democratic countries, creating an illusion that the difference between those isn't that large

[Il Palazzo]

I never liked the Amnesty International, they always tend to downplay human rights violations in China\Russia\Saudi Arabia\etc and blow out of proportion human rights violations in democratic countries, creating an illusion that the difference between those isn't that large

It makes more sense to be vocal about violations in places where being vocal can actually change anything.

[Strongpoint]

Perhaps being more vocal about simple facts that in some countries being gay is punishable by death, women have little more rights than cattle, that there are literal concentration camps, that there are ongoing ethnic cleansing, etc would sway public opinion toward the idea that doing business with those countries is... somewhat... IMMORAL

Instead Amnesty International and the like create a situation of "We have our problems, they have their problems. Peace"

[nenjin]

I never liked the Amnesty International, they always tend to downplay human rights violations in China\Russia\Saudi Arabia\etc and blow out of proportion human rights violations in democratic countries, creating an illusion that the difference between those isn't that large

It makes more sense to be vocal about violations in places where being vocal can actually change anything.

Or being less vocal about places that provide funding.....

[Il Palazzo]

doing business with those countries is... somewhat... IMMORAL

Hey, come now. Be realistic. Business is sacred.

[brewer bob]

Haven't read what Amnesty actually said about the Ukraine stuff except what was on the media, so can't really say anything about it.

I'll still comment on this:

they always tend to downplay human rights violations in China\Russia\Saudi Arabia\etc and blow out of proportion human rights violations in democratic countries, creating an illusion that the difference between those isn't that large

That statement is not entirely true.

The majority of Amnesty's yearly reports are about human rights violations in China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and such. Sure, their press releases (and what the media decides to pick up from them) may often concentrate on human rights violations in democratic countries. But like Il Palazzo said, people in democratic countries are more likely to do something about it. And, as far as I know, they are also vocal about the human rights violations in places where things are much worse, but it has a much smaller impact there.

That said, I'm not a big fan of Amnesty (or any other large NGO) and there's a lot to criticize them for. They're not saints and there's a lot of questionable stuff in their past.

[Strongpoint]

The majority of Amnesty's yearly reports are about human rights violations in China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and such.

I never said that they don't report human rights violations in non-democratic nations. I said that they downplay them.

Their reports make them look less severe than they really are.

[EuchreJack]

The majority of Amnesty's yearly reports are about human rights violations in China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and such.

I never said that they don't report human rights violations in non-democratic nations. I said that they downplay them.

Their reports make them look less severe than they really are.

Arguably, more oppressive governments can oppress the truth better, so it's harder to document their human rights violations.
So if you are looking for the same proof in China as in the United States, the US looks worse because it's more open and better documented.

NGOs also suffer from the problem that they are guests in other countries, and only allowed into the country with that country's permission. This allows countries to mislead the NGO, for example Nazi Germany got good remarks from the Red Cross because the Germans staged what the Red Cross would see.

[brewer bob]

There's also the thing that whatever Amnesty does, people will be saying that they are biased: Western governments say they're anti-West, while non-Western governments say they're pro-West. Most of those who criticize them (for being biased) are countries they've reported for human rights violations, so I guess they're doing something right?

[Strongpoint]

Arguably, more oppressive governments can oppress the truth better, so it's harder to document their human rights violations.
So if you are looking for the same proof in China as in the United States, the US looks worse because it's more open and better documented.

I don't really care about reasons, I care about the effect. If some aliens will use Amnesty International as their only source of information about humanity, they'll conclude that since the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war 2014 Russia and Ukraine are mostly the same shit.

They'll also conclude that Israel is FAR FAR worse than HAMAS or Hezbollah.