5 ms·

Oh so two things are not EXACTLY IDENTICAL and therefore we can't talk about the massive overlap between the two things? That 'whataboutism' culture that has fo

Oh so two things are not EXACTLY IDENTICAL and therefore we can't talk about the massive overlap between the two things? That 'whataboutism' culture that has formed on Reddit is so debate stifling its egregious that it hasn't been stomped out.

ericmay 5y ago
[flagged]
- maydup-nem 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    There was no 2014 puppet government. The U.S. frankly did not much care about Ukraine in 2014. Any suggestion that Ukraine is not making its own choice to be a liberal democracy, even despite the Orange Revolution, even despite 2014, even despite the fierce defensive fighting going on as we speak, is an effort to deny an entire people agency. It is racist.
- azangru 5y ago
  > and even if the situations were exactly the same, that still doesn’t justify Russia invading Ukraine I would take issue with the word justify. That country A did something bad to country B doesn't justify country C doing the same bad thing to country D. But what it does do is puts the actions of country C in historical perspective (i.e. is it uniquely evil), and calls into question the moral argument advanced by country A (if it claims that what country C does to country D is wrong, then how come it did the same to country B? where was the moral argument then?). When we see someone say one thing and do another, we call such person a hypocrite. This person might object that by calling him so, we engage in a whataboutism, because his actions have no bearing on whether what he says is the right thing to do. But such objection typically doesn't work. I wonder why.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    If you wanted to take this further then you'd have to do a greater comparison of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Russia's invasion of Ukraine... and I think then you'd have a difficult time drawing a good comparison. If Russia is or is not justified in its invasion of Ukraine, what is it? What word would you use here when someone is attempting to draw a comparison in order to make one thing "ok" because of another thing?
    - azangru 5y ago
      > If Russia is or is not justified in its invasion of Ukraine, what is it? I've no idea. I don't know if there is such a thing as a justified invasion; and if there is, then what are its criteria; and whether all countries have agreed to recognize the same set of criteria; and what specific criteria Russia would claim that it met in this case. I know that there were several ill-defined reasons that the Russian government offered to its citizens. Obviously, after the invasion had already started. Obviously, insisting that they are in the right. I have not heard an in-depth analysis of their reasons against the criteria of a justified invasion. All I heard are fragments. > What word would you use here when someone is attempting to draw a comparison in order to make one thing "ok" because of another thing? "similar"? "dissimilar"? "understandable"? "incomprehensible"? "ok" is a moral judgement; and applying a moral yardstick to instigators of a war is ... hard.

ericmay 5y ago

[flagged]

maydup-nem 5y ago
[flagged]
- torstenvl 5y ago
  There was no 2014 puppet government. The U.S. frankly did not much care about Ukraine in 2014. Any suggestion that Ukraine is not making its own choice to be a liberal democracy, even despite the Orange Revolution, even despite 2014, even despite the fierce defensive fighting going on as we speak, is an effort to deny an entire people agency. It is racist.
azangru 5y ago
> and even if the situations were exactly the same, that still doesn’t justify Russia invading Ukraine I would take issue with the word justify. That country A did something bad to country B doesn't justify country C doing the same bad thing to country D. But what it does do is puts the actions of country C in historical perspective (i.e. is it uniquely evil), and calls into question the moral argument advanced by country A (if it claims that what country C does to country D is wrong, then how come it did the same to country B? where was the moral argument then?). When we see someone say one thing and do another, we call such person a hypocrite. This person might object that by calling him so, we engage in a whataboutism, because his actions have no bearing on whether what he says is the right thing to do. But such objection typically doesn't work. I wonder why.
- ericmay 5y ago
  If you wanted to take this further then you'd have to do a greater comparison of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Russia's invasion of Ukraine... and I think then you'd have a difficult time drawing a good comparison. If Russia is or is not justified in its invasion of Ukraine, what is it? What word would you use here when someone is attempting to draw a comparison in order to make one thing "ok" because of another thing?
  - azangru 5y ago
    > If Russia is or is not justified in its invasion of Ukraine, what is it? I've no idea. I don't know if there is such a thing as a justified invasion; and if there is, then what are its criteria; and whether all countries have agreed to recognize the same set of criteria; and what specific criteria Russia would claim that it met in this case. I know that there were several ill-defined reasons that the Russian government offered to its citizens. Obviously, after the invasion had already started. Obviously, insisting that they are in the right. I have not heard an in-depth analysis of their reasons against the criteria of a justified invasion. All I heard are fragments. > What word would you use here when someone is attempting to draw a comparison in order to make one thing "ok" because of another thing? "similar"? "dissimilar"? "understandable"? "incomprehensible"? "ok" is a moral judgement; and applying a moral yardstick to instigators of a war is ... hard.