3 ms·

While I'm not saying you're wrong, I think it's worth pointing out that the reason the 1918 flupandemic was called the "Spanish flu" for many years, was that Sp

While I'm not saying you're wrong, I think it's worth pointing out that the reason the 1918 flupandemic was called the "Spanish flu" for many years, was that Spain was the first nation to admit that there was a problem. They weren't the first, or even second or third nation to get it, just the first to admit it. So the problem of not admitting the seriousness of the situation, is not a new one. Which is not to say that it's not a bad thing, just that it's not in any way unique to China, or even to non-democracies.

koheripbal 7y ago
A government held to the standards of over a hundred years ago is still garbage by today's standard. "x is not a new problem" - is not an argument - it's a whataboutism. Every single problem has existed before.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  You're right, it's not an argument, it was a thing to point out, that this problem is not specific to non-democracies. The reason the example is from 100 years ago, is that we haven't really seen as serious a threat as that since then. The closest we've had in the western world since then, was AIDS in the 80's, and I don't think the response was all that top-notch in the first few years. But then, the disease speed of mortality was much slower. We haven't really seen what a western democracy would do in a case like this, since 1918.
  - bane 7y ago
    The closest I can think of might be Mad Cow Disease.
    - rossdavidh 7y ago
      Good point! I think we can say the UK's response was, for some time after that began, less than exemplary.
- basch 7y ago
  "it is a flaw of how their country is run" and "it's why we have converged to a different system in most of the West." The parent is making some kind of argument that China is uniquely susceptible to this kind of situation. Saying "no this isnt unique" isnt whataboutism, its refuting the claim being made. I am noticing a trend where people claim whataboutism any time a counter example or analogy are used, despite them being directly relevant to the premise.
himinlomax 7y ago
> Which is not to say that it's not a bad thing, just that it's not in any way unique to China, or even to non-democracies. You would have a point if the debate was about the relative moral standing of China. It's not, as much as the Communist Party wants to call opponents racist or anti-Chinese which is pure deflection. From an objective point of view, Communist China's authoritarianism is putting the whole world at risk.

koheripbal 7y ago

A government held to the standards of over a hundred years ago is still garbage by today's standard. "x is not a new problem" - is not an argument - it's a whataboutism. Every single problem has existed before.

rossdavidh 7y ago
You're right, it's not an argument, it was a thing to point out, that this problem is not specific to non-democracies. The reason the example is from 100 years ago, is that we haven't really seen as serious a threat as that since then. The closest we've had in the western world since then, was AIDS in the 80's, and I don't think the response was all that top-notch in the first few years. But then, the disease speed of mortality was much slower. We haven't really seen what a western democracy would do in a case like this, since 1918.
- bane 7y ago
  The closest I can think of might be Mad Cow Disease.
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    Good point! I think we can say the UK's response was, for some time after that began, less than exemplary.
basch 7y ago
"it is a flaw of how their country is run" and "it's why we have converged to a different system in most of the West." The parent is making some kind of argument that China is uniquely susceptible to this kind of situation. Saying "no this isnt unique" isnt whataboutism, its refuting the claim being made. I am noticing a trend where people claim whataboutism any time a counter example or analogy are used, despite them being directly relevant to the premise.

himinlomax 7y ago

> Which is not to say that it's not a bad thing, just that it's not in any way unique to China, or even to non-democracies. You would have a point if the debate was about the relative moral standing of China. It's not, as much as the Communist Party wants to call opponents racist or anti-Chinese which is pure deflection. From an objective point of view, Communist China's authoritarianism is putting the whole world at risk.