5 ms·
Russia invaded it’s neighbor. These sanctions are one of the consequences. It sucks for the good-faith programmers in Russia but what would you have the rest o
by scoofy 2y ago
Russia invaded it’s neighbor. These sanctions are one of the consequences.
It sucks for the good-faith programmers in Russia but what would you have the rest of the world do? The Russian state must be sanctioned for its blatant disregard for international norms.
Please don’t just respond with whataboutism. The whataboutism in these threads involves different people in different times. This is happening now.
- pphysch 2y agoYou can't invoke "international norms" and then in the very next paragraph "but no talking about precedent, that would be whataboutism". Norms are established through precedents. There are considerable precedents in the 21st century that military invasions DO NOT lead to international sanctions. So this isn't a valid argument, and it's true that that decision was emotional and politically motivated.
- scoofy 2y agoIt’s a perfectly valid argument. All invasions are generally bad, some worse than others. And, yes, some perpetrators of unjust invasions are punished worse than others. The idea that you turn a conversation about fairness for victims into a conversation about fairness for bullies means you don’t actually care about victims.
- pphysch 2y ago> And, yes, some perpetrators of unjust invasions are punished worse than others. In other words, there are no norms or standards for handling these situations. It's purely political.
- scoofy 2y agoIf you want perfect fairness for bullies, not victims, then you don’t actually care about victims at all. This whataboutism is a circular argument where any brazen invasion can be justified by some previous perceived slight. Because someone somewhere got away with something, now anything is permissible.
- pphysch 2y ago[flagged]
- michaelmrose 2y agoPlease list the countries that have been "destroyed" by NATO specifically.
- Jomamadidit 2y agoLibya,Yugoslavia, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria
- michaelmrose 2y agoYou speak mostly of murderous autocrats who attack their own people. That covers Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia. Not sure where you are going with Bahrain. As far as Yemen the official government of Yemen is a democracy and its opponents believe in eternal theocratic autocracy blessed by God.
- an_guy 2y agoWhen NATO attacks someone, it's murderous autocrats... when anyone not NATO attacks it's attacks om __Democrazy__
- michaelmrose 2y agoNo Those very specific countries were run by murderous autocrats attacking their own people to maintain their unjust and injustifiable rule.
- pphysch 2y agoDon't you think there's a chance that that narrative of "murderous autocrats" was manufactured post hoc to rationalize NATO's aggression? Otherwise it's a mighty coincidence that the West only "intervenes" in places that are simultaneously relevant to Western geopolitical-economic interests and just happen to have a "murderous autocrat" begging to be toppled. So convenient that the bloc which dominates the global media landscape is always narratively-justified in its murder campaigns. Nothing fishy there!
- Jomamadidit 2y ago[flagged]
- michaelmrose 2y agoThis is arguing that we have not sanctioned murderous evil actions in the past therefore we must not do so now or ever after. It's a pretty bad argument.
- vdrkhlm 2y agoThe problem with this discourse is that what you said is hardly relevant. We have a clear understanding of what is considered moral and ethical behavior and what's not. The subject matter may as well be discrimination as no valid legal reason was given for action taken against a group of people otherwise. To say that a group of people is valid to discriminate against because reasons is also discriminatory in itself. If one wants to claim moral superiority, they have to abide by what is moral, otherwise that would make them a hypocrite. To discriminate against someone who did nothing wrong for you, and in fact was working for your cause, and to do that due to the fact that you can do nothing else for a good cause is both hypocritical and petty.
- michaelmrose 2y agoThe legal reasons is the sanctions against Russia for their illegal war of aggression. All of Russia and all who live within its borders are responsible for these actions.
- OmarAssadi 2y agoThere is something beautiful about how U.S. news outlets were always going on about how Russia is a dictatorship, with rigged elections, where you'll be beaten, arrested or killed for protesting or speaking out--Russians supposedly have no agency. And yet simultaneously, now, Russians apparently must be held accountable for everything their government ever does, because they "voted him in" or "should overthrow Putin". We can't have it both ways. Either Russia is a functioning democracy (which I don't personally believe exists anywhere but that is another topic), or perhaps the average person does not actually have very much say in such events. Sanctions are meant to harm innocent people as much as possible, on purpose, with the idea being that it will cause so much unrest that the government either caves to the pressure or the people revolt. While I find that very sick in and of itself, I would at least appreciate it if we were honest about that rather than making contradictory moral statements. That said, worse yet, almost hilariously, I cannot think of a single time sanctions have ever truly worked in a situation even remotely similar to that of Russia. Just think about countries like North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria, etc -- like it or not, these countries have not toppled as a result of the sanctions. Do they hurt? Yes, of course, but they evidently do not destroy nations the way we believed they would. Instead, the innocent are hurt, as was the intention, yet the goal never gets achieved. North Korea still has nuclear weapons, and all we've done is force Iran to develop its own industry, such that, ironically, it is now capable of sending weapons to aid Russia.
- yehat 2y agoWhen the word "whataboutism" is used, you know it's the one rejection of a valid argument or analogy that helps clarify the argument. The ones that can't deal with that coined the therm "whataboutism".
- scoofy 2y agoWhataboutism isn't an argument, it's a deflection.
- lenkite 2y agoNo, its called applying the same argument and same standard to both parties. Your "Laws" are equally applied or not at all.
- aprentic 2y ago"Whataboutism" was originally a valid criticism of "tu-quoque" attacks. Now it's frequently used as a defense for hypocrisy.
- Jomamadidit 2y ago[flagged]
- lenkite 2y agoIsrael has invaded its neighbour. U.S. invaded lots of nations and still bombs multiple nations continually. But no consequences for the same. Whataboutism is necessary since the NATO/Western block juggernaut always raps others on the knuckles but always gets away scot-free when it concerns their own military actions. The sanctimonious hypocrisy is utterly sickening to those in the East and South.