1. It was a throwaway.
2. The reply was... “It does not matter who holds it. Unchecked power always corrupts.”
The problem with the ANC is the same issue as The Nationalist. Without strong opposition and even a stronger free press, unchecked power always leads to corruption.
> "The reply was... “It does not matter who holds it. Unchecked power always corrupts.”"
I would love it if that was indeed your reply. If your reply were indeed simply "It does not matter who holds it. Unchecked power always corrupts." I would upvote the hell out of that. It's true and eternally true. Well, almost, because when I am World Dictator for Life I will rule only with profound, infinite beneficence and enlightenment.
In response to someone pointing out that Dubai is built on slave labor, this person felt the need to say:
"And European cities weren’t? Don’t get me wrong, slave labor is abhorrent but it’s telling it only gets invoked when certain countries participate while the entirety of places like the United States were built upon imperialism, slavery, and genocide."
I am certain, if confronted, this person would point out the *"...Slave labor is abhorrent..." part of the reply, but it is nevertheless difficult for me to understand how the observation as a whole helps current slaves, of which there may be 40 million in the world. "Slave labor is abhorrent, but..." is a sentence that will not end at a good place.
Reeling from the disturbing sight of modern people defending or whatabouting modern slavery, I rebound into this thread. Just, please, you must criticize evil and corruption that exists now, in the present.
The general term for what you describe is "whataboutism". It is a rhetorical technique that allows one to defend the indefensible. First popularized by Russia, the technique has become a favorite among ~40% of Americans.
It's a favorite technique to defend the abuse of power. "Yes, I abused my power, but so does everyone with power," is a cynical, unfalsifiable and worryingly effective argument.
Would the answer to that question be a fair analysis? A great deal has changed about the country between the successive governments - not just the political power structure. Population figures, human development, the march of technology etc, all affect energy demands.
The most optimistic view would be that an energy company that operates without blackouts in an apartheid state should not be applauded for its performance under artificially-depressed demand.
The current blackouts were blamed on corruption, followed by "the good old days of apartheid when corruption ran at an all-time high", implying blackouts were just as bad in the past.
It would be nice to first clear up the factual issue of whether blackouts have grown more or less frequent, before jumping ahead to the moral calculus of who should be applauded or condemned more.
I don't understand where this implication comes from. In claiming that current governmental corruption is the cause of the current blackouts, the throwaway commenter implied that blackouts were less prevalent in the past. The reply then objected to the idea that the previous government was less corrupt - but the opposite statement does not require that blackouts were just as prevalent. It is possible that the previous government was corrupt, but any number of other factors meant that the energy grid did not require load shedding.
That's why I asked if the historical frequency of blackouts is really a fair analysis? Is it worth "clearing up", given that blackouts are not a direct function of corruption?
> I don't understand where this implication comes from.
From "blackouts are due to corruption -> corruption was just as bad in the past". Especially since blackouts were the only symptom of corruption mentioned. Yes, it's possible blackouts didn't manifest due to different reasons, despite equal corruption - that's why it's an implication.
> Is it worth "clearing up", given that blackouts are not a direct function of corruption?
A simple hypothetical "Yes blackouts are more common, but the old government was just as corrupt due to <list of reasons>" would have been much more informative, so yes I do think it's worth clearing up.
Are we supposed to compare governments without comparing the state of the country they ran (run)? Except, of course, apartheid - that doesn't get left out.
It does not matter who holds it. Unchecked power always corrupts.