6 ms·

Regarding your first point, yes, that’s an interesting take. Regarding the criticism of the US, yes you’re probably correct, but this is a “what about” argument

Regarding your first point, yes, that’s an interesting take. Regarding the criticism of the US, yes you’re probably correct, but this is a “what about” argument that doesn’t really aid the discussion in my opinion.

Barrin92 6y ago
Whataboutism gets brought out too fast to dismiss discussion. Democratic systems project their values by demonstrating them. A democratic state that cannot show that its values work will have no ability to demand of others to emulate it. In that context the failures of the US (as it is de-facto the standard-bearer of political liberalism in a broad sense), have real influence. When the Chinese look around the world and they see the state of the US on imprisonment, racial conflict, failure during the current covid crisis and so on, this strengthens the domestic control of the party and the alternative autocratic system the government is advocating.
- Nursie 6y ago
  But it is whataboutery. We're discussing why the UK might not want a Chinese state-allied (if not owned) actor embedded in its comms networks, and here everyone is saying "buh buh buh America!" And frankly if you look at what's happening with BLM (mass protest in the US over a pattern of racist police murders, significant parts of the country vocally criticising the apparatus of state) and consider that somehow worse than the semi-secret genocide of millions, with all discussion suppressed, going on in China....
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    nobody is saying that that is worse than literal concentration camps, what people are saying is that failures to live up to racial justice at home weaken your ability to authentically criticize violations abroad, and that's a very valid point. And as far as communications infrastructure is concerned it's relevant too. In countries like Germany or Eastern Europe in particular the behaviour of espionage among allies over recent years has created an atmosphere of "well everyone is spying on us anyway" substantially weakening the case against Huawei, say. Also as far as discussion here is concerned, most people here are from Western countries, so at the end of the day discussions will mostly be about our own behaviours.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      But it is whataboutery when it's used to deflect and minimise the original criticisms of what the Chinese regime are doing, which is what we are seeing here. What people are saying, pretty straight out and literally in some comments, is "Stop whining about China, the West is just as bad". It's not, and it's pure distraction.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      >weaken your ability to authentically criticize violations abroad It does no such thing. Being a hypocrite does not impact the correctness or incorrectness of what you're saying (which is why the tu quoque fallacy is a fallacy), doubly so when we're talking about entirely different categories of abuses that invalidate the hypocrisy charge anyways.
      - Barrin92 6y ago
        correctness isn't what's relevant in (geo)politics. What matters is being able to influence others and get your interests across. And on that front being a hypocrite matters, both domestically as well as internationally. Listing off fallacies is great in internet discussions, but it's not how the world works. To be honest it's also not really how internet discussions work any more because everyone's grown sick of it.
- rashkov 6y ago
  The US has certainly lost a lot of moral standing, and yes it makes it harder to criticize others, and it strengthens autocratic hands abroad to be able to point to the US' failures. That said, the parent poster isn't the US government, but a private citizen raising a valid criticism of another country. So why can't it stand on its own, without a big show of self-criticism first? Can we not criticize others until our own house is in order? Once that happens, the discussion turns into an argument over moral equivalence or lack thereof -- ie. "the US' crimes are just as bad as China's!" versus "No these things are of completely different degrees!". This line of argument quickly becomes tiring and, I think it completely muddles the original point, which is often what is intended when hurling "what about...!" into the discussion.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    I hear what you're saying here, and no, our country doesn't have to be perfect before criticizing someone else. But still, we should wonder if the criticism is motivated by something other than pure concern for human rights. You expect me to believe that Americans are mad at China strictly because they really, really care about the rights of muslims? With our record and our allies' records? Or is it possible that this is just motivated by geopolitical interest?
    - rashkov 6y ago
      I believe that people who claim to be mad at Chinese human rights abuses are mostly genuine in their feelings. They also have a blind spot for the abuses of their own country and their allies. That blind spot probably comes from the part of ourselves that's very tribal, as well as a social and political environment that ignores and minimizes self-criticism. Now, if we're talking about the US state department, then absolutely they're doing it for geopolitical interests. However, they're also reflecting the concerns of at least some of their citizens. I'd also like to note that there's a moral equivalence argument to be made here. It's possible that China's abuses are actually worse than our own. Or maybe not. I just want to acknowledge that aspect of this argument, but I don't want to get into it because I'm not really informed enough to make it, and I'm certain that 80% of that impression is formed by skimming headlines and whatnot, which is not really a proper basis for debate.

Barrin92 6y ago

Whataboutism gets brought out too fast to dismiss discussion. Democratic systems project their values by demonstrating them. A democratic state that cannot show that its values work will have no ability to demand of others to emulate it. In that context the failures of the US (as it is de-facto the standard-bearer of political liberalism in a broad sense), have real influence. When the Chinese look around the world and they see the state of the US on imprisonment, racial conflict, failure during the current covid crisis and so on, this strengthens the domestic control of the party and the alternative autocratic system the government is advocating.

Nursie 6y ago
But it is whataboutery. We're discussing why the UK might not want a Chinese state-allied (if not owned) actor embedded in its comms networks, and here everyone is saying "buh buh buh America!" And frankly if you look at what's happening with BLM (mass protest in the US over a pattern of racist police murders, significant parts of the country vocally criticising the apparatus of state) and consider that somehow worse than the semi-secret genocide of millions, with all discussion suppressed, going on in China....
- Barrin92 6y ago
  nobody is saying that that is worse than literal concentration camps, what people are saying is that failures to live up to racial justice at home weaken your ability to authentically criticize violations abroad, and that's a very valid point. And as far as communications infrastructure is concerned it's relevant too. In countries like Germany or Eastern Europe in particular the behaviour of espionage among allies over recent years has created an atmosphere of "well everyone is spying on us anyway" substantially weakening the case against Huawei, say. Also as far as discussion here is concerned, most people here are from Western countries, so at the end of the day discussions will mostly be about our own behaviours.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    But it is whataboutery when it's used to deflect and minimise the original criticisms of what the Chinese regime are doing, which is what we are seeing here. What people are saying, pretty straight out and literally in some comments, is "Stop whining about China, the West is just as bad". It's not, and it's pure distraction.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    >weaken your ability to authentically criticize violations abroad It does no such thing. Being a hypocrite does not impact the correctness or incorrectness of what you're saying (which is why the tu quoque fallacy is a fallacy), doubly so when we're talking about entirely different categories of abuses that invalidate the hypocrisy charge anyways.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      correctness isn't what's relevant in (geo)politics. What matters is being able to influence others and get your interests across. And on that front being a hypocrite matters, both domestically as well as internationally. Listing off fallacies is great in internet discussions, but it's not how the world works. To be honest it's also not really how internet discussions work any more because everyone's grown sick of it.
rashkov 6y ago
The US has certainly lost a lot of moral standing, and yes it makes it harder to criticize others, and it strengthens autocratic hands abroad to be able to point to the US' failures. That said, the parent poster isn't the US government, but a private citizen raising a valid criticism of another country. So why can't it stand on its own, without a big show of self-criticism first? Can we not criticize others until our own house is in order? Once that happens, the discussion turns into an argument over moral equivalence or lack thereof -- ie. "the US' crimes are just as bad as China's!" versus "No these things are of completely different degrees!". This line of argument quickly becomes tiring and, I think it completely muddles the original point, which is often what is intended when hurling "what about...!" into the discussion.
- free_rms 6y ago
  I hear what you're saying here, and no, our country doesn't have to be perfect before criticizing someone else. But still, we should wonder if the criticism is motivated by something other than pure concern for human rights. You expect me to believe that Americans are mad at China strictly because they really, really care about the rights of muslims? With our record and our allies' records? Or is it possible that this is just motivated by geopolitical interest?
  - rashkov 6y ago
    I believe that people who claim to be mad at Chinese human rights abuses are mostly genuine in their feelings. They also have a blind spot for the abuses of their own country and their allies. That blind spot probably comes from the part of ourselves that's very tribal, as well as a social and political environment that ignores and minimizes self-criticism. Now, if we're talking about the US state department, then absolutely they're doing it for geopolitical interests. However, they're also reflecting the concerns of at least some of their citizens. I'd also like to note that there's a moral equivalence argument to be made here. It's possible that China's abuses are actually worse than our own. Or maybe not. I just want to acknowledge that aspect of this argument, but I don't want to get into it because I'm not really informed enough to make it, and I'm certain that 80% of that impression is formed by skimming headlines and whatnot, which is not really a proper basis for debate.