3 ms·

This kind of empty, backwards argument is known as a “whataboutism” and is commonly seen in propaganda. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en

This kind of empty, backwards argument is known as a “whataboutism” and is commonly seen in propaganda. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

askmike 7y ago
I don't agree, that's part of an "us vs them" debate. I am saying that I don't think China's bad things have anything to do with them not being democratic. As we can see similar things happening in democratic countries.
coldtea 7y ago
It's also known as "putting things in perspective" and is commonly seen in rational, non-partisan, assessment of events... People thinking (or pretending to think) their "shit doesn't smell" criticize only (or mainly) the other side, for things their side does as well, and demonize the Other, down to supporting policy implications, sometimes down to sanctions and even war. And when someone points to their own shit they invoke "whataboutism" to continue to have their hands in the ears -- and they'd think unfair if they had the same policies/actions against them.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  It’s a fine line between the two, and because of how easily they are confounded the onus is on the speaker to unequivocally avoid whataboutism. Make it very clear how the comparison adds to the discussion of the topic at hand, how it helps move it forward, how the newfound perspective helps other participants come to different conclusions about the original topic and statements. None of which were achieved here. The criticisms of censorship, mistreatment of minorities, impunity of the CCP and comparisons to WWII through title headers are as valid after this point was raised as before. Therefore, this didn’t put anything in perspective: it was just plain old whataboutism. Or, to put your argument in perspective: if these points were raised about the NSDAP back in 1930s, would it be equally justified to “put things in perspective” by similarly drawing attention to American misdeeds? If you can use your argument to justify pretty much anything, it’s not a very strong argument.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  It doesn't address the core of the article at all, which asks: > Democracy is hard work. There is always going to be the need to fight corruption and fight for fairness. But how do we even do that if we don’t have a seat at the table? Don’t sell yourself short handing over your privileges and responsibilities to the state. Shouldn’t you be able to voice your opinion when it really matters? Shouldn’t you have a seat at the table? Saying that it's not always perfect in practice, so it makes no difference if you don't even have it in principle is usually a double standard, because nobody who says that would consider removal of their post or person a valid rebuttal of their argument, which is the democracy vs. totalitarianism dichotomy in a nutshell. That's an actual double standard. On the other hand, it's rather convenient and arbitrary to claim that people who think totalitarianism is bad and support people who want to be free, think "their shit doesn't stink". It's just an accusation so broad, and against no particular person, that it just lingers there, it doesn't get proven, and cannot be refuted.

This kind of empty, backwards argument is known as a “whataboutism” and is commonly seen in propaganda. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

askmike 7y ago

I don't agree, that's part of an "us vs them" debate. I am saying that I don't think China's bad things have anything to do with them not being democratic. As we can see similar things happening in democratic countries.

coldtea 7y ago

It's also known as "putting things in perspective" and is commonly seen in rational, non-partisan, assessment of events... People thinking (or pretending to think) their "shit doesn't smell" criticize only (or mainly) the other side, for things their side does as well, and demonize the Other, down to supporting policy implications, sometimes down to sanctions and even war. And when someone points to their own shit they invoke "whataboutism" to continue to have their hands in the ears -- and they'd think unfair if they had the same policies/actions against them.

nothrabannosir 7y ago
It’s a fine line between the two, and because of how easily they are confounded the onus is on the speaker to unequivocally avoid whataboutism. Make it very clear how the comparison adds to the discussion of the topic at hand, how it helps move it forward, how the newfound perspective helps other participants come to different conclusions about the original topic and statements. None of which were achieved here. The criticisms of censorship, mistreatment of minorities, impunity of the CCP and comparisons to WWII through title headers are as valid after this point was raised as before. Therefore, this didn’t put anything in perspective: it was just plain old whataboutism. Or, to put your argument in perspective: if these points were raised about the NSDAP back in 1930s, would it be equally justified to “put things in perspective” by similarly drawing attention to American misdeeds? If you can use your argument to justify pretty much anything, it’s not a very strong argument.
PavlovsCat 7y ago
It doesn't address the core of the article at all, which asks: > Democracy is hard work. There is always going to be the need to fight corruption and fight for fairness. But how do we even do that if we don’t have a seat at the table? Don’t sell yourself short handing over your privileges and responsibilities to the state. Shouldn’t you be able to voice your opinion when it really matters? Shouldn’t you have a seat at the table? Saying that it's not always perfect in practice, so it makes no difference if you don't even have it in principle is usually a double standard, because nobody who says that would consider removal of their post or person a valid rebuttal of their argument, which is the democracy vs. totalitarianism dichotomy in a nutshell. That's an actual double standard. On the other hand, it's rather convenient and arbitrary to claim that people who think totalitarianism is bad and support people who want to be free, think "their shit doesn't stink". It's just an accusation so broad, and against no particular person, that it just lingers there, it doesn't get proven, and cannot be refuted.