6 ms·

> You mean just like what is happening at the US southern border? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

jacquesm 7y ago
Yes, but in this particular case it is spot on. Kids are getting killed there. See, whataboutism is not a valid defense when it is your own country doing it, then it is whataboutyouism. If my country were doing this I'd drop what I'm doing and protest until the cows came home or they fixed it. But America - and Americans - are very quick to point the finger at other countries for things they do themselves with abandon.
Spooky23 7y ago
It’s hard for Americans to take a high moral ground given that conduct.
- rayiner 7y ago
  No it’s not and the false equivalency is incredibly destructive. It must be possible for countries to judge others without being perfect themselves. South Africa was forced to capitulate due to international pressure. They took the moral high ground, even though their race relations at home were deeply troubled. But they could do that because people understood that there was a hierarchy of wrongs and racial profiling in the justice system, while bad, wasn’t as bad as de jure segregation. When you say, well if America does something bad it has no business judging others, you destroy the ability to objectively assess right and wrong, wrong and very wrong, and bad from worse. It’s like gouging one of your eyes out and losing your depth perception. There are billions of people whose lives would be immeasurably improved if their countries were more like America (even with its faults). America can help those people, by showing moral leadership and acting from the moral high ground. It is imperative to the prosperity of future generations that the world come to look more like America and not like communist China. The “America is just as bad” rhetoric maybe makes you seem cool at parties with other moral relativists, but it’s bad for the world.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    One could easily quote some scripture, but since I'm an atheist I prefer logic: It helps tremendously in taking a moral stance if one is not culpable in the very same way. What's bad for the world is that American also does this. It is imperative to future generations' well-being that the world comes to look more like countries that do this better than America, not that the world comes to look more like America. Moral leadership starts in your own house, and then when you have a particular issue dealt with then you can go and point your little finger at others. In the meantime, there is plenty that America does well, this particular subject is not one of those. South Africa was not put under pressure by countries that themselves practiced Apartheid. It would have been farcical if it had been.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      The idea that America is doing things “in the very same way” is just so utterly unbelievable that I don’t know what to say. There are serious problems with the US handling of the border. There are also serious problems with Denmark’s seizure of assets from refugees and Australia’s detention of migrants on an island processing center. None of that should be mentioned in the same breath as what’s happening in China.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        It should be because the United States' stance on human rights, specifically those of children in detention camps would be a damn sight more powerful if they didn't violate them with abandon. From the position of child in China or in the United States detention camps your finer points of morality don't matter one little bit, they are either scarred for life or end up dead. And now we've crossed into what is actual whataboutism, the pointing at unrelated things in unrelated countries. For the present, the United States is the one country that just might have done something about this and due their own political choices they no longer have much power to speak in the fora where it would matter. You can thank Stephen Miller and his merry band of stooges for that.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
- _Microft 7y ago
  "The core problem is that this rhetorical device precludes discussion of issues (ex: civil rights) by one country (ex: the United States) if that state lacks a perfect record." as a journalist wrote when Trump weaseled out of a discussion in a different context.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    No, it hasn't got anything to do with that. It is simply that complaining about the same thing that another country does while your own country does it too is hypocritical. You don't need to have a perfect record on everything else, but on that particular thing your statements are moot because your opponent (in this case China) will be able to simply ignore you because you do it yourself too. It would be about as effective as China calling the US to task for the same issue.
    - _Microft 7y ago
      > No, it hasn't got anything to do with that. It is simply that complaining about the same thing that another country does while your own country does it too is hypocritical. > You don't need to have a perfect record on everything else, but on that particular thing your statements are moot because your opponent (in this case China) will be able to simply ignore you because you do it yourself too. It would be about as effective as China calling the US to task for the same issue. Neither the BBC nor I are American. So maybe let's approach this in a more constructive manner: would you mind stating how you would discuss the topic of these chinese camps, taking into account both the scale of the problem and the severity of the events (without immediately derailing the discussion again)?
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        > Neither the BBC nor I are American. Good, so no need for you to feel addressed then. > how you would discuss the topic of these chinese camps I would want to see international sanctions against the Chinese government enacted in some world body. I would like to see the very same sanctions enacted against the USA. In both cases we are talking about serious crimes against humanity. Fat chance this will ever happen, precisely because the most powerful parties in that forum are both guilty of the same transgression. If not for that this might have a (slim) chance of success.

jacquesm 7y ago

Yes, but in this particular case it is spot on. Kids are getting killed there. See, whataboutism is not a valid defense when it is your own country doing it, then it is whataboutyouism. If my country were doing this I'd drop what I'm doing and protest until the cows came home or they fixed it. But America - and Americans - are very quick to point the finger at other countries for things they do themselves with abandon.

Spooky23 7y ago

It’s hard for Americans to take a high moral ground given that conduct.

rayiner 7y ago
No it’s not and the false equivalency is incredibly destructive. It must be possible for countries to judge others without being perfect themselves. South Africa was forced to capitulate due to international pressure. They took the moral high ground, even though their race relations at home were deeply troubled. But they could do that because people understood that there was a hierarchy of wrongs and racial profiling in the justice system, while bad, wasn’t as bad as de jure segregation. When you say, well if America does something bad it has no business judging others, you destroy the ability to objectively assess right and wrong, wrong and very wrong, and bad from worse. It’s like gouging one of your eyes out and losing your depth perception. There are billions of people whose lives would be immeasurably improved if their countries were more like America (even with its faults). America can help those people, by showing moral leadership and acting from the moral high ground. It is imperative to the prosperity of future generations that the world come to look more like America and not like communist China. The “America is just as bad” rhetoric maybe makes you seem cool at parties with other moral relativists, but it’s bad for the world.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  One could easily quote some scripture, but since I'm an atheist I prefer logic: It helps tremendously in taking a moral stance if one is not culpable in the very same way. What's bad for the world is that American also does this. It is imperative to future generations' well-being that the world comes to look more like countries that do this better than America, not that the world comes to look more like America. Moral leadership starts in your own house, and then when you have a particular issue dealt with then you can go and point your little finger at others. In the meantime, there is plenty that America does well, this particular subject is not one of those. South Africa was not put under pressure by countries that themselves practiced Apartheid. It would have been farcical if it had been.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The idea that America is doing things “in the very same way” is just so utterly unbelievable that I don’t know what to say. There are serious problems with the US handling of the border. There are also serious problems with Denmark’s seizure of assets from refugees and Australia’s detention of migrants on an island processing center. None of that should be mentioned in the same breath as what’s happening in China.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      It should be because the United States' stance on human rights, specifically those of children in detention camps would be a damn sight more powerful if they didn't violate them with abandon. From the position of child in China or in the United States detention camps your finer points of morality don't matter one little bit, they are either scarred for life or end up dead. And now we've crossed into what is actual whataboutism, the pointing at unrelated things in unrelated countries. For the present, the United States is the one country that just might have done something about this and due their own political choices they no longer have much power to speak in the fora where it would matter. You can thank Stephen Miller and his merry band of stooges for that.
- Spooky23 7y ago
_Microft 7y ago
"The core problem is that this rhetorical device precludes discussion of issues (ex: civil rights) by one country (ex: the United States) if that state lacks a perfect record." as a journalist wrote when Trump weaseled out of a discussion in a different context.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  No, it hasn't got anything to do with that. It is simply that complaining about the same thing that another country does while your own country does it too is hypocritical. You don't need to have a perfect record on everything else, but on that particular thing your statements are moot because your opponent (in this case China) will be able to simply ignore you because you do it yourself too. It would be about as effective as China calling the US to task for the same issue.
  - _Microft 7y ago
    > No, it hasn't got anything to do with that. It is simply that complaining about the same thing that another country does while your own country does it too is hypocritical. > You don't need to have a perfect record on everything else, but on that particular thing your statements are moot because your opponent (in this case China) will be able to simply ignore you because you do it yourself too. It would be about as effective as China calling the US to task for the same issue. Neither the BBC nor I are American. So maybe let's approach this in a more constructive manner: would you mind stating how you would discuss the topic of these chinese camps, taking into account both the scale of the problem and the severity of the events (without immediately derailing the discussion again)?
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > Neither the BBC nor I are American. Good, so no need for you to feel addressed then. > how you would discuss the topic of these chinese camps I would want to see international sanctions against the Chinese government enacted in some world body. I would like to see the very same sanctions enacted against the USA. In both cases we are talking about serious crimes against humanity. Fat chance this will ever happen, precisely because the most powerful parties in that forum are both guilty of the same transgression. If not for that this might have a (slim) chance of success.