I don't see why you think this isn't whataboutism. You could rephrase it as, "What about the attitude towards human rights in the United States? Should I not in

I don't see why you think this isn't whataboutism. You could rephrase it as, "What about the attitude towards human rights in the United States? Should I not invest there either?" without changing it's meaning. Whether the statement relates to an individual or organization's choices is orthogonal to whether it's whataboutism or a deflection. You can't take whataboutism and transmute it into a good faith response by rephrasing it to emphasize your own agency. That seems an absurd suggestion to me, I don't really understand where you're coming from. A statement is whataboutism if it introduces irrelevant information in order to assert a moral equivalence. If the question is, "Are you concerned about China's human rights record?" (as distinct from, say, "Which of these countries has the better human rights record?"), then the United States is not the subject and pivoting the conversation over to the United States is whataboutism. > In a CNBC interview in the fall of 2021, Mr. Dalio dismissed concerns about China’s human rights track record, likening the country’s government to a “strict parent.” (Bridgewater manages billions of dollars for companies partly owned by the Chinese government.) > “Should I not invest in the United States because of our own human rights leadership?” he asked. Can you honestly tell me that referring to, say, the genocide of the Uighur people, as merely "strict parenting" is an honest and good faith engagement in the discussion with no elements of deflection and no attempt to minimize and dismiss the problem?