5 ms·

You can slam "whataboutism" all you want, but it successfully points out hypocrisy, double-standards and opportunism.

awb 5y ago
The point is that no two situations are exactly the same. And whataboutism dodges the details. Maybe the CEO’s stance is: I won’t do business with a country that annexes another non-aggressive country through violence.
- markdown 5y ago
  ... while I'm alive. Otherwise the Kingdom of Hawaii might have something to say.
  - zamalek 5y ago
    "What about history?"
  - awb 5y ago
    The Hawaiian islands were individual tribes until they were subjugated in a bloody war, with weapons and assistance from Americans: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_I#Unification_of_the_islands https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_I#Unification_of_... That’s why it’s possible to play “what about” all day long and not get very far. It’s almost always apples and oranges. Ukraine isn’t Iraq or any other US military action. It doesn’t mean the US actions were good. It’s just too dissimilar to be an apples to apples comparison. The closest apple I can think of is another European authoritarian leader, with bold threatening rhetoric and a strong nationalist identity who felt humiliated and threatened and decided to purge his opposition while promising other leaders he wouldn’t invade his neighbors before quickly annexing much weaker, non-aggressive neighboring countries that he thought lacked sufficient cultural and geographical distinction or were part of his country’s historical borders. And a lot of people had regrets about not pushing back sooner on that guy and incorrectly trusting that he would stop after the first country or two.
    - markdown 5y ago
      > The Hawaiian islands were individual states until they were subjugated in a bloody war, with weapons and assistance from Americans FTFY, but what's your point? Just about every state on planet earth came about through violence.
      - awb 5y ago
        That is the point. There are no perfect countries to use as a moral compass, so we’re all making up and changing the rules as we go along. That’s why every country looks hypocritical depending on your timeframe and subject to endless (and fruitless) whataboutism.
- Svettie 5y ago
  that's... exactly the point, but with the reverse conclusion. You can always paint a narrative about how this situation is different than others. You can justify anything you want by just working backwards in this way. So instead, we have values and principles, and those are the things that should be under debate.
  - awb 5y ago
    I’m a little confused. Are you saying the CEO failed to convey his values and principles?
viraptor 5y ago
Assigning different priority to things and spending energy on one issue but not another may be hypocrisy. We don't know in this situation. Just as you commenting here right now and not mentioning issues in Papua New Guinea doesn't make you a hypocrite not caring about human lives.

awb 5y ago

The point is that no two situations are exactly the same. And whataboutism dodges the details. Maybe the CEO’s stance is: I won’t do business with a country that annexes another non-aggressive country through violence.

markdown 5y ago
... while I'm alive. Otherwise the Kingdom of Hawaii might have something to say.
- zamalek 5y ago
  "What about history?"
- awb 5y ago
  The Hawaiian islands were individual tribes until they were subjugated in a bloody war, with weapons and assistance from Americans: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_I#Unification_of_the_islands https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_I#Unification_of_... That’s why it’s possible to play “what about” all day long and not get very far. It’s almost always apples and oranges. Ukraine isn’t Iraq or any other US military action. It doesn’t mean the US actions were good. It’s just too dissimilar to be an apples to apples comparison. The closest apple I can think of is another European authoritarian leader, with bold threatening rhetoric and a strong nationalist identity who felt humiliated and threatened and decided to purge his opposition while promising other leaders he wouldn’t invade his neighbors before quickly annexing much weaker, non-aggressive neighboring countries that he thought lacked sufficient cultural and geographical distinction or were part of his country’s historical borders. And a lot of people had regrets about not pushing back sooner on that guy and incorrectly trusting that he would stop after the first country or two.
  - markdown 5y ago
    > The Hawaiian islands were individual states until they were subjugated in a bloody war, with weapons and assistance from Americans FTFY, but what's your point? Just about every state on planet earth came about through violence.
    - awb 5y ago
      That is the point. There are no perfect countries to use as a moral compass, so we’re all making up and changing the rules as we go along. That’s why every country looks hypocritical depending on your timeframe and subject to endless (and fruitless) whataboutism.
Svettie 5y ago
that's... exactly the point, but with the reverse conclusion. You can always paint a narrative about how this situation is different than others. You can justify anything you want by just working backwards in this way. So instead, we have values and principles, and those are the things that should be under debate.
- awb 5y ago
  I’m a little confused. Are you saying the CEO failed to convey his values and principles?

viraptor 5y ago

Assigning different priority to things and spending energy on one issue but not another may be hypocrisy. We don't know in this situation. Just as you commenting here right now and not mentioning issues in Papua New Guinea doesn't make you a hypocrite not caring about human lives.