4 ms·

A lot can be said about Israel, and this NSO stuff is extremely alarming. However, they also should get some credit as (one of?) the only countries in the Middl

A lot can be said about Israel, and this NSO stuff is extremely alarming. However, they also should get some credit as (one of?) the only countries in the Middle East where the laws don’t dictate that people be persecuted and/or killed for being homosexual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

dragonwriter 5y ago
Is there a distinct name for this form or relative of whataboutism where some supposed superiority over some other group on some axis irrelevant to the issue at hand is raised to derail criticism of a regime or other group’s abuses?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > some axis irrelevant to the issue at hand Someone asked why Israel is considered a "beacon of democracy" in the region. That opens the conversation to why liberal democracies elevate it over the region's autocracies. The tolerance it shares with other liberal documents is germane.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    There are straight up dictatorships that protect gay rights and democracies that don't. I don't see why it's a relevant axis.
    - smashah 5y ago
      This tactic of dipping your true intentions in the aesthetics of progress is new and designed to trick people with a north-star cause to sympathize with the oppressor. Unfortunately it only takes a few brain cycles for even the simplest of persons to realise that upholding apartheid because #girlpower is a sad stretch and a half. It's relevant because the goal is to delegitimize criticism of apartheid and it's export of oppression to its neighbours. There is no other point of relevance to my original comment and, in all honesty, it amounts to blatant propogandising. I'll just leave it at that.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > It's relevant because the goal is to delegitimize criticism of apartheid and it's export of oppression to its neighbours It's equally reductive to ignore those progressive elements on account of certain elements of repression. It doesn't make them less murderous. And it doesn't de-legitimize criticism. But reality doesn't offer perfect choices. Every government is flawed; most have redeeming values. We must balance the former against the latter. Armchair enthusiasts can imagine perfect options, but reality isn't that forgiving to decision makers. Israel's unregulated spyware, bordering on terrorism, is an international issue. Its apartheid state is an international issue. But the freedoms it affords a large number of its citizens stands in sharp contrast to its neighbors. That, too, is of international interest. Acknowledging that is not a diversion and does not de-legitimize the criticism--it contextualists it.
        smashah 5y ago
        It is not equally reductive because one reduction serves to perpetuate oppression, apartheid and empowers regimes that are the architects of roadblocks to progress. And the other reduction aims to remove the obstacles to dismantling all the above. The only way the contextualisation is relevent to the original comment is if there's some value in appending this racist myth that "if those Arabs had their say then women would be on leashes and gays would be made into smoothies on-sight". Ironically, the contextualisation is the status quo. The contextualisation is a direct result of, among other things, Israel and it's complicit export of cyber oppression weapons. And before someone claims that this is separate from the state, just consider that the export license would not be granted for a sale which would be detrimental to Israel's interests as a state. The base deduction is that it's in the interest of the state to keep its neighbours citizens in-check and for Israel to be known worldwide to be an exporter of these exact tools.
justsid 5y ago
This is the bar we have? If you don’t murder your citizens for being gay you are a good guy and if not then you are bad?

dragonwriter 5y ago

Is there a distinct name for this form or relative of whataboutism where some supposed superiority over some other group on some axis irrelevant to the issue at hand is raised to derail criticism of a regime or other group’s abuses?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> some axis irrelevant to the issue at hand Someone asked why Israel is considered a "beacon of democracy" in the region. That opens the conversation to why liberal democracies elevate it over the region's autocracies. The tolerance it shares with other liberal documents is germane.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  There are straight up dictatorships that protect gay rights and democracies that don't. I don't see why it's a relevant axis.
  - smashah 5y ago
    This tactic of dipping your true intentions in the aesthetics of progress is new and designed to trick people with a north-star cause to sympathize with the oppressor. Unfortunately it only takes a few brain cycles for even the simplest of persons to realise that upholding apartheid because #girlpower is a sad stretch and a half. It's relevant because the goal is to delegitimize criticism of apartheid and it's export of oppression to its neighbours. There is no other point of relevance to my original comment and, in all honesty, it amounts to blatant propogandising. I'll just leave it at that.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > It's relevant because the goal is to delegitimize criticism of apartheid and it's export of oppression to its neighbours It's equally reductive to ignore those progressive elements on account of certain elements of repression. It doesn't make them less murderous. And it doesn't de-legitimize criticism. But reality doesn't offer perfect choices. Every government is flawed; most have redeeming values. We must balance the former against the latter. Armchair enthusiasts can imagine perfect options, but reality isn't that forgiving to decision makers. Israel's unregulated spyware, bordering on terrorism, is an international issue. Its apartheid state is an international issue. But the freedoms it affords a large number of its citizens stands in sharp contrast to its neighbors. That, too, is of international interest. Acknowledging that is not a diversion and does not de-legitimize the criticism--it contextualists it.
      - smashah 5y ago
        It is not equally reductive because one reduction serves to perpetuate oppression, apartheid and empowers regimes that are the architects of roadblocks to progress. And the other reduction aims to remove the obstacles to dismantling all the above. The only way the contextualisation is relevent to the original comment is if there's some value in appending this racist myth that "if those Arabs had their say then women would be on leashes and gays would be made into smoothies on-sight". Ironically, the contextualisation is the status quo. The contextualisation is a direct result of, among other things, Israel and it's complicit export of cyber oppression weapons. And before someone claims that this is separate from the state, just consider that the export license would not be granted for a sale which would be detrimental to Israel's interests as a state. The base deduction is that it's in the interest of the state to keep its neighbours citizens in-check and for Israel to be known worldwide to be an exporter of these exact tools.

justsid 5y ago

This is the bar we have? If you don’t murder your citizens for being gay you are a good guy and if not then you are bad?