4 ms·

>And I believe that its influence has been overplayed and is insignificant (if not negative) This always comes up and it's just like the Russian phrase "and yo

>And I believe that its influence has been overplayed and is insignificant (if not negative) This always comes up and it's just like the Russian phrase "and you are lynching negroes." This basically same argument from Russia to the US boils down to: it doesn't matter that you have improved upon the world, and looking to further improve on it, because you were far from perfect yourself and doing some very bad things. Those bad things should be criticized, but I am certain had you the choice to be born in the pre-enlightenment world that you would not take it.

coldtea 8y ago
>This always comes up and it's just like the Russian phrase "and you are lynching negroes." I find nothing wrong with that argument. In fact, the actual disingenuous Cold War practice of whataboutism was rather the accusation of whataboutism itself. It was meant as a thought stopper, to only allow one-sized criticism and to prevent putting things into perspective that doesn't flatter the first side. Knowing that both side X and Y did bad things is totally compatible with trying to fix them (in fact it's a prerequirement). It also stops you from painting Y as some uniquely evil, while letting X get away scot-free. But only hearing side X attack Y on some bad shit, and not the other side (because that would be "whataboutism"), just serves to hide what X itself does, and to portray Y as some uniquely evil figure. >Those bad things should be criticized, but I am certain had you the choice to be born in the pre-enlightenment world that you would not take it. It's more of a wash. There are tons of places and social classes I'd like to belong to enlightenment, and tons of places and social classes I'd like to avoid being enlightenment.