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 cle

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.