4 ms·
> but drawing an equivalence of wrongdoing to another wrongdoer does not exonerate the former (Russia). Incorrect, it completely exonerates them if you are go
by throwaway210222 5y ago
> but drawing an equivalence of wrongdoing to another wrongdoer does not exonerate the former (Russia).
Incorrect, it completely exonerates them if you are going to merrily let the the other wrongdoer carry on with the offending behaviour.
If you disagree, ask what's the moral case for not dealing the other wrongdoer tomorrow morning?
- datameta 5y agoMy deep embarassment at the peace wrecking actions of the other wrongdoer (USA) as a citizen of the country in no way diminishes my absolute condemnation of Russia's actions toward Ukraine, as someone whose ancestry is from both the perpetrator and victim nation.
- throwaway210222 5y agoMy thoughts exactly. So lets deal with Russia today, and de-fang the USA tomorrow at 9am. No? Why not? See?
- datameta 5y agoI'm not quite sure if you followed what I had said. Let us assume one can directly measure wrongdoing and correlate a level of condemnation. For the sake of argument let us say the USA is deserving of 100 units of condemnation, whereas Russia is only fit to receive 50. This is not an equation that becomes 50 and 0. All that Russia is responsible for is still equally hegemonic, internationally illegal, amoral, and unethical. In so many words I am essentially saying that whataboutism does not add to the discourse and in fact derails and detracts.
- throwaway894345 5y agoThe "other wrongdoer" isn't doing harm on the order that Russia is (indeed, the "other wrongdoer" does a tremendous amount of good globally that we all collectively ignore) but more saliently the "other wrongdoer" supplies Europe with an order of magnitude less natural gas than Russia.