5 ms·

> The US ... This style of argument is deflection, and it gets us nowhere. It's very effective in redirecting the focus away from one bad actor and onto anoth

> The US ... This style of argument is deflection, and it gets us nowhere. It's very effective in redirecting the focus away from one bad actor and onto another bad actor, though.

joe_the_user 7y ago
It all depends on what level of attention one is assuming. I like to imagine a situation where people can understand a world with multiple bad actors.
godelski 7y ago
To add to your comment: We should be critical of our own government. Panarky clearly agrees with this (me too). The difference is that the conversation is about China. We can also have a conversation about the US or <insert any Western country> and how they are not respecting people's freedom. But this conversation is about China. It's also a conversation that needs to be had. Plus this redirection is similar to "Bob shot a guy 30 times." "Oh yeah? Bill punched a guy". Neither Bob or Bill are likely good guys, but come on... Bob is definitely worse and Bill's actions don't really relate to how we want to condemn Bob's actions.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jolmg 7y ago
  > But this conversation is about China. I don't know. It seems kind of weird to want to restrict the conversation like that, but I guess I kind of see your point. > Plus this redirection is similar to "Bob shot a guy 30 times." "Oh yeah? Bill punched a guy". The way I saw it, the neighborhood is turning kind of bad. Someone comments "Bob shot a guy 30 times", and another adds "Bill punched a guy". Neither of these people have met Bob nor Bill and don't really care about them in particular, but their interest lies in the neighborhood as a whole.
  - godelski 7y ago
    It isn't so much about restricting as derailing.
bduerst 7y ago
Call it what it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- theslurmmustflo 7y ago
  Can you explain what's wrong with whataboutism?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
    - borvel 7y ago
      Maybe the point is that governments everywhere are the enemies of their people. They lock people in cages and murder with impugnity. They commit atrocities to keep us terrified. They terrorize. Either we remove them from power or we will be subjugated forever.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - toss1 7y ago
    Sure, several things: It is basically changing the topic when you have no effective rebuttal to an argument/issue. It also creates a false equivalence between the real issue and the "whatabout" issue. In this case, GP has no answer to China going FAR beyond any reasonable measure by requiring any tourist to install spyware on their phone so they can access all private conversations, so GP wants to ignore that and talk about public info the US requires visitors disclose at the border. The false equivalence is created by treating as parallel and roughly equivalent govt actions the requirement to install spyware vs divulging of SocMed accts. I'm NOT saying that divulging SocMed accts could be a definite threat to a variety of classes of people, especially journalists writing undercover. But even for that specific example, which is worse, enumerating your public SocMed accounts, or installing spyware on your phone, which will divulge far more? Not even in the same ballpark. In sum, Whataboutism is not only damaging the conversation, it can often also be a method of disingenuous argument.
cltsang 7y ago
To clarify, in China, one could get "disappeared" for the rest of his/her life, just because of befriending CCP's "enemies", or speaking up against the official rhetoric. I don't think the two countries are even remotely comparable on this front.
- borvel 7y ago
  In the US, that person just gets "suicided" instead. What will we ever do about this mental health epidemic?
- yazan94 7y ago
  China is definitely worse than America in that regard as far as we can tell, but lets not forget Guantanamo Bay and America taking suspects to be tortured overseas.
dmix 7y ago
"But western countries do x [whataboutism]" is the standard Chinese propaganda response to everything too. A big part of the 50-cent party's job [1] is to promote negative western news stories. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/50_Cent_Party https://www.wikiwand.com/en/50_Cent_Party
- siidooloo 7y ago
  And it was successful. Half the comments are now about the West. And you have to scroll down to see any of the comments about China.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  At some point when both nations disrespect peoples privacy rights at their borders, it becomes a repression version of the Overton window.
CWuestefeld 7y ago
Why is the conversation to be focused exclusively on China, though? Maybe the correct lesson to be drawn from this is the creeping dangers of authoritarian power in any country. Maybe seeing the abuses of China together with those of the USA - and the other FIVE EYES countries, and elsewhere, will lead us to understand that we need to keep tight reins on all government. But forcing us to discuss only what China has done denies us the opportunity for such a conversation.

> The US ... This style of argument is deflection, and it gets us nowhere. It's very effective in redirecting the focus away from one bad actor and onto another bad actor, though.

joe_the_user 7y ago

It all depends on what level of attention one is assuming. I like to imagine a situation where people can understand a world with multiple bad actors.

godelski 7y ago

To add to your comment: We should be critical of our own government. Panarky clearly agrees with this (me too). The difference is that the conversation is about China. We can also have a conversation about the US or <insert any Western country> and how they are not respecting people's freedom. But this conversation is about China. It's also a conversation that needs to be had. Plus this redirection is similar to "Bob shot a guy 30 times." "Oh yeah? Bill punched a guy". Neither Bob or Bill are likely good guys, but come on... Bob is definitely worse and Bill's actions don't really relate to how we want to condemn Bob's actions.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jolmg 7y ago
> But this conversation is about China. I don't know. It seems kind of weird to want to restrict the conversation like that, but I guess I kind of see your point. > Plus this redirection is similar to "Bob shot a guy 30 times." "Oh yeah? Bill punched a guy". The way I saw it, the neighborhood is turning kind of bad. Someone comments "Bob shot a guy 30 times", and another adds "Bill punched a guy". Neither of these people have met Bob nor Bill and don't really care about them in particular, but their interest lies in the neighborhood as a whole.
- godelski 7y ago
  It isn't so much about restricting as derailing.

bduerst 7y ago

Call it what it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

theslurmmustflo 7y ago
Can you explain what's wrong with whataboutism?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - borvel 7y ago
    Maybe the point is that governments everywhere are the enemies of their people. They lock people in cages and murder with impugnity. They commit atrocities to keep us terrified. They terrorize. Either we remove them from power or we will be subjugated forever.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- toss1 7y ago
  Sure, several things: It is basically changing the topic when you have no effective rebuttal to an argument/issue. It also creates a false equivalence between the real issue and the "whatabout" issue. In this case, GP has no answer to China going FAR beyond any reasonable measure by requiring any tourist to install spyware on their phone so they can access all private conversations, so GP wants to ignore that and talk about public info the US requires visitors disclose at the border. The false equivalence is created by treating as parallel and roughly equivalent govt actions the requirement to install spyware vs divulging of SocMed accts. I'm NOT saying that divulging SocMed accts could be a definite threat to a variety of classes of people, especially journalists writing undercover. But even for that specific example, which is worse, enumerating your public SocMed accounts, or installing spyware on your phone, which will divulge far more? Not even in the same ballpark. In sum, Whataboutism is not only damaging the conversation, it can often also be a method of disingenuous argument.

cltsang 7y ago

To clarify, in China, one could get "disappeared" for the rest of his/her life, just because of befriending CCP's "enemies", or speaking up against the official rhetoric. I don't think the two countries are even remotely comparable on this front.

borvel 7y ago
In the US, that person just gets "suicided" instead. What will we ever do about this mental health epidemic?
yazan94 7y ago
China is definitely worse than America in that regard as far as we can tell, but lets not forget Guantanamo Bay and America taking suspects to be tortured overseas.

dmix 7y ago

"But western countries do x [whataboutism]" is the standard Chinese propaganda response to everything too. A big part of the 50-cent party's job [1] is to promote negative western news stories. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/50_Cent_Party https://www.wikiwand.com/en/50_Cent_Party

siidooloo 7y ago
And it was successful. Half the comments are now about the West. And you have to scroll down to see any of the comments about China.
dv_dt 7y ago
At some point when both nations disrespect peoples privacy rights at their borders, it becomes a repression version of the Overton window.

CWuestefeld 7y ago

Why is the conversation to be focused exclusively on China, though? Maybe the correct lesson to be drawn from this is the creeping dangers of authoritarian power in any country. Maybe seeing the abuses of China together with those of the USA - and the other FIVE EYES countries, and elsewhere, will lead us to understand that we need to keep tight reins on all government. But forcing us to discuss only what China has done denies us the opportunity for such a conversation.