5 ms·

What about the US military's FB page? Didn't they cause thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq? I'm sure some Americans can somehow justify it, but I doubt the gr

What about the US military's FB page? Didn't they cause thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq? I'm sure some Americans can somehow justify it, but I doubt the grieving Iraqi's will accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massa...

asxd 6y ago
The difference is the Myanmar military was killing their own citizens. A country's military firing live rounds on their own citizens with seemingly no remorse is different than a country's military committing violence in foreign countries. I'm certainly not condoning either example of military force presented here, but the duty of the military should ultimately be to preserve their citizens. Killing its own citizens and then using social media to lie about it is something I don't think the US military has done.
- angio 6y ago
  Should Facebook then close Police departments pages? They're killing fellow citizens and they're doing that more than any other Police force in the west.
  - asxd 6y ago
    That's a decent point. To my argument though, the duty of the police sometimes does acceptably involve violence against citizens when necessary (although at present they are far too frequently forgetting the "when necessary" part). Also, police departments are far more localized and I think hold much less clout than a national organization.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Well, I'm sure at least someone thought about doing that over the summer.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- nix23 6y ago
  Aung San Suu Kyi Defends Myanmar Against Rohingya Genocide Accusations: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-myanmar-genocide-hague.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  The US is inprisoning drug users en masse and forces them to provide labour. That does not directly kill people but prevents them from living it the way they want which is somewhat similar in effect, not to mention all the suicides or related gang violence. Not much different to be honest. Army let politicians get boatloads of cash from prison and pharma industry to keep up the war on citizens. Wake up.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wil421 6y ago
Why even bring this up? Whataboutism is a very shallow argument.
- vermilingua 6y ago
  Because it may be shallow, but when discussing the criteria by which they decide what is worth taking down, it is also a very valid argument.
- qart 6y ago
  Well, aminozuur is pointing out hypocrisy. Facebook is not applying the same rules to everyone. That is bad. That aside, my own views are similar to sep_field's... with the exception that I would silently prefer Facebook to go away, without explaining why I'd like that.
- vmception 6y ago
  Given that “Whataboutism” really means “hypocrisy in a geopolitical context” I think the entire definition should be updated to reflect it as a very valid observation, instead of the assumption that it is a weak argument because in my experience it usually isnt, even during the height of the cold war the Soviet Union’s observations about the US were accurate.
f6v 6y ago
An American company will always be a mouthpiece for American propaganda. Not saying whether it’s right or wrong, it’s just the way it is.
ArkanExplorer 6y ago
I think you are misunderstand the point of Facebook's actions. The purpose is not to harm or pressure the Burmese military authorities - Its to virtue signal to left-leaning activists in the USA and other Western Countries. Technology companies have dug themselves into a hole of censorship and deplatforming, and they have no choice but to keep digging.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Only "left-leaning" people oppose the Myanmar coup?
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    The details of the coup aren't understood or cared about that deeply by American discourse. But the idea that it's trivial and salutary to identify and ban "bad" or "dangerous" speech is decisively left-coded right now, in exactly the way similar impulses were right-coded during periods of rightwing political dominance (immediately post-9/11, parts of the Cold War, etc)
    - barbacoa 6y ago
      All these recent events involving censorship and left aligned tech companies eerily reminds me a passage the Unabomber wrote in his manifesto back in the 1990s. " Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else's academic freedom. (This is "political correctness.") The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control. "
eplanit 6y ago
Its removal should be actively encouraged amongst the SJWs. FB backing itself, and being backed into, corner after corner helps reveal the hypocrisy more quickly.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ascold 6y ago
There is a slight difference though. Myanmar military took over the government. The US military is led by the president of the United States and only the Congress has the power to declare war.

asxd 6y ago

The difference is the Myanmar military was killing their own citizens. A country's military firing live rounds on their own citizens with seemingly no remorse is different than a country's military committing violence in foreign countries. I'm certainly not condoning either example of military force presented here, but the duty of the military should ultimately be to preserve their citizens. Killing its own citizens and then using social media to lie about it is something I don't think the US military has done.

angio 6y ago
Should Facebook then close Police departments pages? They're killing fellow citizens and they're doing that more than any other Police force in the west.
- asxd 6y ago
  That's a decent point. To my argument though, the duty of the police sometimes does acceptably involve violence against citizens when necessary (although at present they are far too frequently forgetting the "when necessary" part). Also, police departments are far more localized and I think hold much less clout than a national organization.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Well, I'm sure at least someone thought about doing that over the summer.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nix23 6y ago
Aung San Suu Kyi Defends Myanmar Against Rohingya Genocide Accusations: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-myanmar-genocide-hague.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...
intricatedetail 6y ago
The US is inprisoning drug users en masse and forces them to provide labour. That does not directly kill people but prevents them from living it the way they want which is somewhat similar in effect, not to mention all the suicides or related gang violence. Not much different to be honest. Army let politicians get boatloads of cash from prison and pharma industry to keep up the war on citizens. Wake up.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wil421 6y ago

Why even bring this up? Whataboutism is a very shallow argument.

vermilingua 6y ago
Because it may be shallow, but when discussing the criteria by which they decide what is worth taking down, it is also a very valid argument.
qart 6y ago
Well, aminozuur is pointing out hypocrisy. Facebook is not applying the same rules to everyone. That is bad. That aside, my own views are similar to sep_field's... with the exception that I would silently prefer Facebook to go away, without explaining why I'd like that.
vmception 6y ago
Given that “Whataboutism” really means “hypocrisy in a geopolitical context” I think the entire definition should be updated to reflect it as a very valid observation, instead of the assumption that it is a weak argument because in my experience it usually isnt, even during the height of the cold war the Soviet Union’s observations about the US were accurate.

f6v 6y ago

An American company will always be a mouthpiece for American propaganda. Not saying whether it’s right or wrong, it’s just the way it is.

ArkanExplorer 6y ago

I think you are misunderstand the point of Facebook's actions. The purpose is not to harm or pressure the Burmese military authorities - Its to virtue signal to left-leaning activists in the USA and other Western Countries. Technology companies have dug themselves into a hole of censorship and deplatforming, and they have no choice but to keep digging.

newacct583 6y ago
Only "left-leaning" people oppose the Myanmar coup?
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  The details of the coup aren't understood or cared about that deeply by American discourse. But the idea that it's trivial and salutary to identify and ban "bad" or "dangerous" speech is decisively left-coded right now, in exactly the way similar impulses were right-coded during periods of rightwing political dominance (immediately post-9/11, parts of the Cold War, etc)
  - barbacoa 6y ago
    All these recent events involving censorship and left aligned tech companies eerily reminds me a passage the Unabomber wrote in his manifesto back in the 1990s. " Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else's academic freedom. (This is "political correctness.") The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control. "

eplanit 6y ago

Its removal should be actively encouraged amongst the SJWs. FB backing itself, and being backed into, corner after corner helps reveal the hypocrisy more quickly.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ascold 6y ago

There is a slight difference though. Myanmar military took over the government. The US military is led by the president of the United States and only the Congress has the power to declare war.