4 ms·

Because it's a separate topic and you're engaging in whataboutism.

shkkmo 4y ago
Literally the exact same topic: making a list of the worst infractors. Edit: Here's the summary of this thread so far: 1) Let's make a rule against it instead of just hitting companies based on their nationality 2) A rule would be great, but in the mean time let's target the worst actors 3) These US based spy agencies do a bunch of stuff that is similar, where are they on that list? 4) That's off topic whataboutism 5) Seems like the same topic, why is it different? 6) It just is, no explanation required Using "whataboutism" to try to shut down discussions you don't like is not intellectually interesting or useful.
- pksebben 4y ago
  I think we either need to narrowly define whataboutism or stop using it altogether. in discussions like these it takes the role of a hammer to beat anyone that questions American exceptionalism and it's kinda gross. it always goes along the lines of your thread; a: "hey, look at awful thing x <other country> is doing, we should do something about that" b: "we do that too, and it is bad. we should fix it" a: "that's whataboutism and it's off topic" where x includes, but is not limited to: class-based legal asymmetry, extralegal incarceration, the existence of a ruling class, unprovoked invasions of sovereign territory, race-based murder by state actors, news suppression... .. and mass surveillance with a political agenda. Were I to Don my tinfoil chapeau, I'd say there's a taste of astroturfing to conversations like these. Abusive patterns of social interaction that certainly seem like they're in service of a national agenda. But lacking proof, I won't.
  - computerfriend 4y ago
    That's interesting, because I feel the exact same way but on the opposite side. "we do that too, and it is bad." just reads as deflection to me. This comment section is full of it and it's very tiresome.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      I see nowhere in this comment chain, where "we do that too" was used as an attempt to shut down discussion or to justify the bad behavior. What it was being used to do was to support the argument that "instead of just banning one company, we should create rules that apply fairly." That isn't deflection. Notably, the first non-TikTok entities that were mentioned as needing to be reigned in were the KGB. Nobody complained that was off topic. So while "whataboutism" and allegations of "whataboutism" can both be (edit: and frequently are) used to distract and deflect, that doesn't mean that every instance of either is doing that. You have to ACTUALLY READ what is being said and how it relates, not make snap judgments.
- computerfriend 4y ago
  I actually love this topic. It's not at all a discussion I don't like. You can see throughout these comments, and everywhere else, every time this topic comes up, the "but also the USA" fallacious argument is brought out. It's really not relevant.

Literally the exact same topic: making a list of the worst infractors. Edit: Here's the summary of this thread so far: 1) Let's make a rule against it instead of just hitting companies based on their nationality 2) A rule would be great, but in the mean time let's target the worst actors 3) These US based spy agencies do a bunch of stuff that is similar, where are they on that list? 4) That's off topic whataboutism 5) Seems like the same topic, why is it different? 6) It just is, no explanation required Using "whataboutism" to try to shut down discussions you don't like is not intellectually interesting or useful.

pksebben 4y ago
I think we either need to narrowly define whataboutism or stop using it altogether. in discussions like these it takes the role of a hammer to beat anyone that questions American exceptionalism and it's kinda gross. it always goes along the lines of your thread; a: "hey, look at awful thing x <other country> is doing, we should do something about that" b: "we do that too, and it is bad. we should fix it" a: "that's whataboutism and it's off topic" where x includes, but is not limited to: class-based legal asymmetry, extralegal incarceration, the existence of a ruling class, unprovoked invasions of sovereign territory, race-based murder by state actors, news suppression... .. and mass surveillance with a political agenda. Were I to Don my tinfoil chapeau, I'd say there's a taste of astroturfing to conversations like these. Abusive patterns of social interaction that certainly seem like they're in service of a national agenda. But lacking proof, I won't.
- computerfriend 4y ago
  That's interesting, because I feel the exact same way but on the opposite side. "we do that too, and it is bad." just reads as deflection to me. This comment section is full of it and it's very tiresome.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    I see nowhere in this comment chain, where "we do that too" was used as an attempt to shut down discussion or to justify the bad behavior. What it was being used to do was to support the argument that "instead of just banning one company, we should create rules that apply fairly." That isn't deflection. Notably, the first non-TikTok entities that were mentioned as needing to be reigned in were the KGB. Nobody complained that was off topic. So while "whataboutism" and allegations of "whataboutism" can both be (edit: and frequently are) used to distract and deflect, that doesn't mean that every instance of either is doing that. You have to ACTUALLY READ what is being said and how it relates, not make snap judgments.
computerfriend 4y ago
I actually love this topic. It's not at all a discussion I don't like. You can see throughout these comments, and everywhere else, every time this topic comes up, the "but also the USA" fallacious argument is brought out. It's really not relevant.