4 ms·

It sounds like you're not familiar with why whataboutism and ad hominem attacks do not create a counterpoint to an argument. I'd like to encourage you to read

It sounds like you're not familiar with why whataboutism and ad hominem attacks do not create a counterpoint to an argument. I'd like to encourage you to read a little more to try and gain a deeper perspective on how issues are framed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

lucian1900 5y ago
I’m familiar with the concepts, no need to condescend. The point is precisely about framing, this isn’t a moderated debate between equal parties we’re talking about. The material incentives of the speaker are essential in understanding their motivation. US proxies can speak the truth (in the strictest sense) and still mislead through the manipulation of context and framing. And said speech can further the interests of extracting profits from the global south.
- frombody 5y ago
  I meant no condescension. I just don't understand your suggestion the US "sort their own problems out first". If this were a court, do you think the judge should drop the whole SolarWinds case against Russia because of Obama's actions in the Middle-East/Africa?
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    My point is precisely that this isn’t a court of equals. We are all constantly threatened by the US, either directly or through a proxy. With guns pointed at us the US makes claims, usually to undermine any efforts to resist the threat.
    - frombody 5y ago
      Appealing to hypocrisy is an attempt to shift the blame to evade an argument. Obama's decisions in Africa do not justify anyone hacking SolarWinds. Most parents won't allow their children to get away with passing the blame like this, let alone a court of law.
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        Again, the point isn't the hypocrisy itself but rather the unfairness of the "court". The US gets to constantly blame countries it oppresses of various things without consequence, to the point where it hardly even matters whether what they say is even true. Hypocrisy is merely a symptom.

lucian1900 5y ago

I’m familiar with the concepts, no need to condescend. The point is precisely about framing, this isn’t a moderated debate between equal parties we’re talking about. The material incentives of the speaker are essential in understanding their motivation. US proxies can speak the truth (in the strictest sense) and still mislead through the manipulation of context and framing. And said speech can further the interests of extracting profits from the global south.

frombody 5y ago
I meant no condescension. I just don't understand your suggestion the US "sort their own problems out first". If this were a court, do you think the judge should drop the whole SolarWinds case against Russia because of Obama's actions in the Middle-East/Africa?
- lucian1900 5y ago
  My point is precisely that this isn’t a court of equals. We are all constantly threatened by the US, either directly or through a proxy. With guns pointed at us the US makes claims, usually to undermine any efforts to resist the threat.
  - frombody 5y ago
    Appealing to hypocrisy is an attempt to shift the blame to evade an argument. Obama's decisions in Africa do not justify anyone hacking SolarWinds. Most parents won't allow their children to get away with passing the blame like this, let alone a court of law.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      Again, the point isn't the hypocrisy itself but rather the unfairness of the "court". The US gets to constantly blame countries it oppresses of various things without consequence, to the point where it hardly even matters whether what they say is even true. Hypocrisy is merely a symptom.