6 ms·

Due to the high possibility of censorship on so many sites, coupled with a constantly shifting mainstream narrative, it’s hard to believe any headline coming fr

Due to the high possibility of censorship on so many sites, coupled with a constantly shifting mainstream narrative, it’s hard to believe any headline coming from a mainstream (approved) source. Ukraine, for instance, seems to be a divided country, much like the US, where there is an approved narrative and near blanket censorship. Some Ukrainians want to return to Russian rule, and some want the West to intervene. In Russia, there are citizens who love and ones who hate their government. Some embrace the West, some distrust and hate the West (especially America—based on the mainstream narrative, which is heavily censored).

raspasov 5y ago
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- thriftwy 5y ago
  I've never heard what's the actual problem with whatabaoutism. If you do bad things and get away with those, quit preaching at least.
  - vba616 5y ago
    I think Russians generally like their country because it is their home, think it should continue to exist, prefer that it be strong and not weak, and that its citizens should be secure and not insecure. No scandal, crime, or shortcoming of particular rulers has any bearing on this. Normal people in all countries are like this.
    - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
      True but I separate my country from whatever government is currently in power. And if the government is running the country that I love into the ground... We rally around flags not people.
  - izzygonzalez 5y ago
    It's a thought-extinguishing tactic. It attempts to redirect or scatter attention away from the topic at hand. This could be in a misguided sincere attempt to draw analogies, or could be more nefarious. Whataboutism seems to commonly occur when some agent of power is being criticized.
    - okl 5y ago
      In addition Whataboutism never tries to deliver an argument in favour of your position, only arguments against other positions.
      - thriftwy 5y ago
        It is usually invoked in the fashion: - We have this and that reason to do {thing}. - These reasons are laughable and you still don't have excuse to do {thing}. - What about when you did {thing} with ever worse reasons stated? In this case I would say whataboutism is justified, or at least, no constructive dialogue is possible.
        okl 5y ago
        It is not justified because however worse the reasons of the other party are, it will never make your own argument true. Your example exhibits the tu-quoque fallacy. You are right with the last sentence. Unfortunately few people are interested to find out what's true in our world nowadays — for them it is more important to feel justified with their position regardless if its true or false.
        vba616 5y ago
        The key here is that when talking to an American, "you" means every American since the founding of the US. Collectively, that's an endless mine of material. When talking to anyone else, "you" means one individual, like Putin, plus one can be sure an American won't remember a single thing he did more than a year ago and that can be dismissed as a digression in any case.
    - anon2020dot00 5y ago
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    The reasoning is: Two wrongs don't make a right, and the subject being discussed is A not B. That's what's wrong with whataboutism.
  - MrWiffles 5y ago
    Loads of things wrong with this interpretation; just to point out a few: - it’s pointless to insist on zero hypocrisy before entertaining the ideas of another because there’s no such thing in any human and never has been. You’re a hypocrite. So am i. Get over it. - “what about x?” distracts from the issue being discussed and usually has absolutely nothing to do with it anyway For example, imagine something like this: Pro-Invasion guy: “Putin is right, the US pushed them into this, they’re acting in self defense!” Not-Bullshit guy: “Oh come on, it’s not like the US or NATO launched an attack from a base of operations within Ukraine.“ PIG: “What about the US invasion of Iraq under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war?” The two are entirely unrelated for a myriad of reasons. It’s a purely emotional reaction meant to vindicate your fragile little ego, and nothing more. Worst of all, it wastes time and effort that’s better spent working the real problem. We could have been finding ways to help the Russian people circumvent Putin’s news censorship instead of this just now, which would have done a hell of a lot more to promote the cause of human liberty than this discussion, and possibly could have indirectly saved lives in the long run. But here we are…
  - throwaway5848 5y ago
    Yup, there's nothing wrong with it. Crying about it just an effective way to shut down dissent.
    - glogla 5y ago
      - throwaway5848 5y ago
csee 5y ago
A very small minority wanted to return to Russian rule on the eve of the invasion according to polling of Ukrainian people. And even if they did want to return to Russian rule (which they didn't), the just thing would've been to hold a referendum. They are a democracy after all.
- xster 5y ago
  I don't think referenda make much of a difference. 96% of Crimea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum) voted to join Russia and 96% of Luhansk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums) voted to leave Ukraine after the 2014 overthrow. Nothing much came out of it except 14,000 being killed in Donbas as result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#War_in_Donbas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain....
  - codedokode 5y ago
    These number are provided by Russian government. How can you be sure that they are true? Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws.
    - severino 5y ago
      > Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws. Yet Ukraine had no intention at all to organize a "real" referenda under their laws. Instead, they preferred to keep on bombing those rebel regions in Eastern Ukraine. Now, they ask Russia to stop doing the very same thing.
      - codedokode 5y ago
        > Yet Ukraine had no intention at all to organize a "real" referenda under their laws Why should they cede their land to someone? And why should referendum be held only in one region, and not in the whole country? No country will agree to this. Will Putin organize a referendum if I suggest that my city separate from Russia and join European Union? Did Putin or Eltsin organize such referendum in Chechnya? It doesn't matter whether Ukraine should or should not have hold such referendum. It is Russian soldiers who crossed the border and pulled the trigger first in 2014, not Ukranian. The war (as almost every war) is there because Putin and many Russians want more land, more glorious victories and more political influence, not because someone didn't organize a referendum.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
TheGigaChad 5y ago

raspasov 5y ago

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

thriftwy 5y ago
I've never heard what's the actual problem with whatabaoutism. If you do bad things and get away with those, quit preaching at least.
- vba616 5y ago
  I think Russians generally like their country because it is their home, think it should continue to exist, prefer that it be strong and not weak, and that its citizens should be secure and not insecure. No scandal, crime, or shortcoming of particular rulers has any bearing on this. Normal people in all countries are like this.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    True but I separate my country from whatever government is currently in power. And if the government is running the country that I love into the ground... We rally around flags not people.
- izzygonzalez 5y ago
  It's a thought-extinguishing tactic. It attempts to redirect or scatter attention away from the topic at hand. This could be in a misguided sincere attempt to draw analogies, or could be more nefarious. Whataboutism seems to commonly occur when some agent of power is being criticized.
  - okl 5y ago
    In addition Whataboutism never tries to deliver an argument in favour of your position, only arguments against other positions.
    - thriftwy 5y ago
      It is usually invoked in the fashion: - We have this and that reason to do {thing}. - These reasons are laughable and you still don't have excuse to do {thing}. - What about when you did {thing} with ever worse reasons stated? In this case I would say whataboutism is justified, or at least, no constructive dialogue is possible.
      - okl 5y ago
        It is not justified because however worse the reasons of the other party are, it will never make your own argument true. Your example exhibits the tu-quoque fallacy. You are right with the last sentence. Unfortunately few people are interested to find out what's true in our world nowadays — for them it is more important to feel justified with their position regardless if its true or false.
      - vba616 5y ago
        The key here is that when talking to an American, "you" means every American since the founding of the US. Collectively, that's an endless mine of material. When talking to anyone else, "you" means one individual, like Putin, plus one can be sure an American won't remember a single thing he did more than a year ago and that can be dismissed as a digression in any case.
  - anon2020dot00 5y ago
- raverbashing 5y ago
  The reasoning is: Two wrongs don't make a right, and the subject being discussed is A not B. That's what's wrong with whataboutism.
- MrWiffles 5y ago
  Loads of things wrong with this interpretation; just to point out a few: - it’s pointless to insist on zero hypocrisy before entertaining the ideas of another because there’s no such thing in any human and never has been. You’re a hypocrite. So am i. Get over it. - “what about x?” distracts from the issue being discussed and usually has absolutely nothing to do with it anyway For example, imagine something like this: Pro-Invasion guy: “Putin is right, the US pushed them into this, they’re acting in self defense!” Not-Bullshit guy: “Oh come on, it’s not like the US or NATO launched an attack from a base of operations within Ukraine.“ PIG: “What about the US invasion of Iraq under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war?” The two are entirely unrelated for a myriad of reasons. It’s a purely emotional reaction meant to vindicate your fragile little ego, and nothing more. Worst of all, it wastes time and effort that’s better spent working the real problem. We could have been finding ways to help the Russian people circumvent Putin’s news censorship instead of this just now, which would have done a hell of a lot more to promote the cause of human liberty than this discussion, and possibly could have indirectly saved lives in the long run. But here we are…
- throwaway5848 5y ago
  Yup, there's nothing wrong with it. Crying about it just an effective way to shut down dissent.
  - glogla 5y ago
    - throwaway5848 5y ago

csee 5y ago

A very small minority wanted to return to Russian rule on the eve of the invasion according to polling of Ukrainian people. And even if they did want to return to Russian rule (which they didn't), the just thing would've been to hold a referendum. They are a democracy after all.

xster 5y ago
I don't think referenda make much of a difference. 96% of Crimea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum) voted to join Russia and 96% of Luhansk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums) voted to leave Ukraine after the 2014 overthrow. Nothing much came out of it except 14,000 being killed in Donbas as result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#War_in_Donbas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain....
- codedokode 5y ago
  These number are provided by Russian government. How can you be sure that they are true? Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws.
  - severino 5y ago
    > Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws. Yet Ukraine had no intention at all to organize a "real" referenda under their laws. Instead, they preferred to keep on bombing those rebel regions in Eastern Ukraine. Now, they ask Russia to stop doing the very same thing.
    - codedokode 5y ago
      > Yet Ukraine had no intention at all to organize a "real" referenda under their laws Why should they cede their land to someone? And why should referendum be held only in one region, and not in the whole country? No country will agree to this. Will Putin organize a referendum if I suggest that my city separate from Russia and join European Union? Did Putin or Eltsin organize such referendum in Chechnya? It doesn't matter whether Ukraine should or should not have hold such referendum. It is Russian soldiers who crossed the border and pulled the trigger first in 2014, not Ukranian. The war (as almost every war) is there because Putin and many Russians want more land, more glorious victories and more political influence, not because someone didn't organize a referendum.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

TheGigaChad 5y ago