5 ms·

Actually no, it's about moral shifts. The morality of today is very, very, very different from what it was a mere thousand years ago. Brigandry (killing travele

Actually no, it's about moral shifts. The morality of today is very, very, very different from what it was a mere thousand years ago. Brigandry (killing travelers on the road so that you can take their stuff) was once considered a noble profession, for example. But the world moves on, and morality has a tendency to move in tectonic shifts. Suddenly (it seems), what was okay is no longer okay, because the people say so. "Suddenly", it's not okay to kill passers-by and take their stuff. "Suddenly", it's not okay to treat children any way you please as their parents and masters. "Suddenly", it's only natural that a man doesn't need to be of noble birth to vote. "Suddenly", it's even a woman's right to vote. "Suddenly", apartheid isn't okay anymore. "Suddenly", you're not allowed to kick your dog anymore. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of those "suddenlys". Wars of conquest (i.e. invading and annexing a neighboring country) fell out of favor in the 19th century, with the last major hurrah in the 1930s. The world has moved on, and it's no longer okay to do that. We condemn Russia because we don't allow that sort of behavior anymore. But throwing "what about America doing X and Y?" around would be like protesting anti-apartheid campaigns against South Africa just because racial inequality and violence hadn't been solved in America (in fact, there was a fair bit of whataboutism by those who opposed changing the South African order). It just comes off as crass and self-serving in the end. If you want real change, you push for a movement and solidarity against evil. That's what these Ukrainian woman have done, and it's beautiful to see. The whataboutism that tears down their supports on the other hand, is a most insidious evil, because you're basically telling Americans that they have no right to stand against Russia's evil acts (the call of hypocrisy, tu-quoque). You shame potential allies into inaction against a clear and present evil, which is a horrible thing to do on so many levels.

EGreg 4y ago
The question is simple. Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question. I think for the same reason this happens: https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arrest-icc-judges-american-soldiers-afghan-war-crimes https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arr... I think that speaks for itself. What is the year when it became "not ok to invade, occupy and bomb other countries that present no threat to you and are not even within 1000 miles of you"? Because that's kind of the thing that matters, right? You mentioned 1930. Since then, USA has been involved in 80% of the wars, and has 800 bases around the world while the rest of the world combined has 30. Who needs "conquest" when you can intimidate everyone into doing what you want? Do you not see the issue here? It's simple ... if we all suddenly grew a conscience, great! So will you join people in calling for sanctions on USA and ostracism of US athletes? Can you link us to a post about that? Here is Mehdi Hassan doing it -- will you? https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1520952450286755841?lang=en https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1520952450286755841?l... And if not -- the real question is why not and why do you feel strongly in one case but not the other?
- kstenerud 4y ago
  > The question is simple. It most certainly is not. > Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question. This does reach the crux of the matter. Why don't we see Cubans boycotting American athletes and gaining major international support? Why aren't Syrians raising hell at every athletic competition, protesting that Americans and Turks are allowed to compete? Everyone's free to join in and boycott, so why don't they? Answer: Because on the whole it's not important enough to them to warrant the investment of effort and time. Because America's behaviors aren't that far out of the international norm of today (sad to say). That "suddenly" hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for quite some time. And that's how we measure moral shifts. One day the shittier things America does today will be protest worthy, but our morality has not moved that far yet, and we still have much bigger fish to fry. So to answer your question: I feel strongly about one case but not the other because they are not equivalent. And worrying about all the little problems before starting to solve the big ones makes the perfect the enemy of the good. And that's the beef I have over whataboutism: It makes storms in teacups. That's what it's designed for, and why it's rightly called a logical fallacy.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    What Russia is doing is analogous to what USA did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can't allow a neighboring country, especially one that was a former ally, to join an enemy military alliance and pose an existential threat to some of your citizens, by, say, pointing nuclear missiles at you -- neither now nor in 15 years. Any country would react to being surrounded and cornered, including today's USA. That at least has some relation to self-defense and preservation: you don't want to take the chances that a "purely defensive alliance" which already bombed destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya will now stop bombing and destroying. So what you said honestly seems backwards to me on every level, including logical, ethical, and reality. Logical: You say we should not "worry about all the little problems before starting to solve the big ones." So are you trying to say that going halfway around the world, bombing, invading, occupying and destroying multiple countries, and resulting in over a million deaths, is a much smaller problem, than invading one country to prevent it from joining a hostile alliance? The number of countries is larger. The death toll is also larger. The destruction is larger. But you have it backwards somehow. If you applied your principle, it would mean we would actually have to prioritize preventing USA from doing this anymore, not Russia. I am saying we should do both. Ethical: How is going halfway around the world to attack countries that pose literally ZERO threat to your country, less worthy of moral condemnation, than getting militarily involved around your own localized borders in order to stop that same "globetrotter" from flipping your neighbor against you? One has an actual connection to self defense, and the other literally does not. But you have it backwards, again. Reality: billions of people recognize that NATO's expansion led to this, USA's own experts predicted it, and even the Ukrainians themselves did NOT want to be part of NATO, when George W Bush vowed to bring them into NATO kicking and screaming anyway. Every sound bite you are you told to repeat, including "open door policy", "purely defensive" and "unprovoked and unjustified", is backwards. Ukraine says NO to NATO: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n... Bush vows to press for Ukraine in NATO: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vows-to-press-for-ukraine-georgia-in-nato-idUSL0141706220080401 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vo... Decades of warnings predicting NATO expansion leading to this exact war: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w... 50 prominent US policy experts said this back in 1999: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o... Billions of people hold NATO responsible for Ukraine war more than Russia: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsible-for-ukraine-war-than-russia-survey https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib... Even the pope says it repeatedly and doubles down on it: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vatican-pope-francis-russia-war-ukraine-nato/5711655218266/ https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vat... Nigel Farage warned about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg Tulsi Gabbard and many politicians say it could have been avoided: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 Progressives try to push for peace: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-joe-biden-ukraine-war-russia-letter https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-jo... The very peacemakers who were brokering peace in the first week of the war say USA and UK blocked the peace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs I could go on... but my point is it's backwards. This is plain and simple a way for USA to push through a surrounding of Russia at Ukraine's expense ... if they can get it done, great. If not, well Ukraine paid the price, they "wanted to fight" after all.
athrowaw 4y ago
Increase in whataboutism I think is caused by unequal treatment for the same evil actions. Imagine there is a crime done by a person of a race X who gets a warning and the same crime done by a person of a race Y who goes to jail. Now by amplifying how bad person of a race Y did and asking for a death penalty you only increase that inequality of treatment. How do you see we push for a movement and solidarity against evil in an equal for all manner in a world where some countries may not have economic power to put sanctions and other countries can ignore UN because of their power?

EGreg 4y ago

The question is simple. Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question. I think for the same reason this happens: https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arrest-icc-judges-american-soldiers-afghan-war-crimes https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arr... I think that speaks for itself. What is the year when it became "not ok to invade, occupy and bomb other countries that present no threat to you and are not even within 1000 miles of you"? Because that's kind of the thing that matters, right? You mentioned 1930. Since then, USA has been involved in 80% of the wars, and has 800 bases around the world while the rest of the world combined has 30. Who needs "conquest" when you can intimidate everyone into doing what you want? Do you not see the issue here? It's simple ... if we all suddenly grew a conscience, great! So will you join people in calling for sanctions on USA and ostracism of US athletes? Can you link us to a post about that? Here is Mehdi Hassan doing it -- will you? https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1520952450286755841?lang=en https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1520952450286755841?l... And if not -- the real question is why not and why do you feel strongly in one case but not the other?

kstenerud 4y ago
> The question is simple. It most certainly is not. > Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question. This does reach the crux of the matter. Why don't we see Cubans boycotting American athletes and gaining major international support? Why aren't Syrians raising hell at every athletic competition, protesting that Americans and Turks are allowed to compete? Everyone's free to join in and boycott, so why don't they? Answer: Because on the whole it's not important enough to them to warrant the investment of effort and time. Because America's behaviors aren't that far out of the international norm of today (sad to say). That "suddenly" hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for quite some time. And that's how we measure moral shifts. One day the shittier things America does today will be protest worthy, but our morality has not moved that far yet, and we still have much bigger fish to fry. So to answer your question: I feel strongly about one case but not the other because they are not equivalent. And worrying about all the little problems before starting to solve the big ones makes the perfect the enemy of the good. And that's the beef I have over whataboutism: It makes storms in teacups. That's what it's designed for, and why it's rightly called a logical fallacy.
- EGreg 4y ago
  What Russia is doing is analogous to what USA did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can't allow a neighboring country, especially one that was a former ally, to join an enemy military alliance and pose an existential threat to some of your citizens, by, say, pointing nuclear missiles at you -- neither now nor in 15 years. Any country would react to being surrounded and cornered, including today's USA. That at least has some relation to self-defense and preservation: you don't want to take the chances that a "purely defensive alliance" which already bombed destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya will now stop bombing and destroying. So what you said honestly seems backwards to me on every level, including logical, ethical, and reality. Logical: You say we should not "worry about all the little problems before starting to solve the big ones." So are you trying to say that going halfway around the world, bombing, invading, occupying and destroying multiple countries, and resulting in over a million deaths, is a much smaller problem, than invading one country to prevent it from joining a hostile alliance? The number of countries is larger. The death toll is also larger. The destruction is larger. But you have it backwards somehow. If you applied your principle, it would mean we would actually have to prioritize preventing USA from doing this anymore, not Russia. I am saying we should do both. Ethical: How is going halfway around the world to attack countries that pose literally ZERO threat to your country, less worthy of moral condemnation, than getting militarily involved around your own localized borders in order to stop that same "globetrotter" from flipping your neighbor against you? One has an actual connection to self defense, and the other literally does not. But you have it backwards, again. Reality: billions of people recognize that NATO's expansion led to this, USA's own experts predicted it, and even the Ukrainians themselves did NOT want to be part of NATO, when George W Bush vowed to bring them into NATO kicking and screaming anyway. Every sound bite you are you told to repeat, including "open door policy", "purely defensive" and "unprovoked and unjustified", is backwards. Ukraine says NO to NATO: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n... Bush vows to press for Ukraine in NATO: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vows-to-press-for-ukraine-georgia-in-nato-idUSL0141706220080401 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vo... Decades of warnings predicting NATO expansion leading to this exact war: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w... 50 prominent US policy experts said this back in 1999: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o... Billions of people hold NATO responsible for Ukraine war more than Russia: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsible-for-ukraine-war-than-russia-survey https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib... Even the pope says it repeatedly and doubles down on it: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vatican-pope-francis-russia-war-ukraine-nato/5711655218266/ https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vat... Nigel Farage warned about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg Tulsi Gabbard and many politicians say it could have been avoided: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 Progressives try to push for peace: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-joe-biden-ukraine-war-russia-letter https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-jo... The very peacemakers who were brokering peace in the first week of the war say USA and UK blocked the peace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs I could go on... but my point is it's backwards. This is plain and simple a way for USA to push through a surrounding of Russia at Ukraine's expense ... if they can get it done, great. If not, well Ukraine paid the price, they "wanted to fight" after all.

athrowaw 4y ago

Increase in whataboutism I think is caused by unequal treatment for the same evil actions. Imagine there is a crime done by a person of a race X who gets a warning and the same crime done by a person of a race Y who goes to jail. Now by amplifying how bad person of a race Y did and asking for a death penalty you only increase that inequality of treatment. How do you see we push for a movement and solidarity against evil in an equal for all manner in a world where some countries may not have economic power to put sanctions and other countries can ignore UN because of their power?