It amounts to "put on blinders and follow your side when it accuses the other, and never see things in perspective".
It generally means that only one side has the right to criticize (if the other side answers back, it's "whataboutism") -- and that third parties shouldn't call bot the pot and kettle black (it's whataboutism to even mention the pot), and instead should listen to the pot accusing the kettle of blackness.
Even worse when it's not bloody business of the pot what the kettle does -- but they want to make it so anyway, because they like to boss other kitchen implements around.
I’m one of the first ones to criticize the USA, there is plenty that is wrong to talk about! But open up a thread that is critical of the USA and you’ll rarely see Americans bringing up problems in China, yet discussions about China almost always lead back to discussions about the USA! When china is ready to talk about its problems without referring to the USA, well, it will be ready to become a superpower. Right now they just come off as insecure.
Actually the argument is more like: bad guys shouldn't go after bad guys. It's hypocritical, self-serving in the name of some "cause", and creates worse outcomes.
You know, like a bad guy going in to bring "democracy" (assert control for strategic interests and/or ensure cheap oil and favorable currency use) and ends up in chaos, civil war, fundamentalism, and refugee waves. Time and again.
But I guess hypocrisy never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.
As for good guys, they can go after the bad guys all they want, and we'll even cheer for them.
Bad guys can go after bad guys. Good guys can still go after the remaining bad guys.
If we sit around waiting for he without sin to cast the stones, if on the off-chance that such a rare soul exists, then that small army-of-one will be outnumbered and overpowered and neutralized.
It's not "don't go after those guys", but "take care of our own problems first". This way, when offering solutions to other oppressive countries we wouldn't look like hypocrites.
Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?
The reality for the US is if it tries to take action to improve perceived injustices in the world, it is being hypocritical and "imperialist". If it does nothing, it is selfish and heartless, having the power to help but doing nothing. As far as the US goes, we are screwed either way.
Regardless, I think I can look at what is happening in China, not like it, and feel foreboding about the future. This isn't some small country somewhere. This is the most populous country in the world and I empathize with the people who live there. And frankly, China is the heir apparent to the US as the global super power. This concerns us all.
You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period. Who appointed you world cop? Besides, it always ends up in tears (besides it being hypocritical help with strategic ambitions attached from the establishment side, even if ordinary people mean it sincerely).
>Or are you making the argument that the US government is in fact more oppressive than the Chinese government?
Internally, not. Globally, surely yes.
So when oppressed people inside an imperfect country are pleading for help from another imperfect country which is capable of helping,
The country being begged to help should go “sorry, we’re imperfect, can’t help. Besides, even though you’re asking for our help and we can certainly help, we’re not the global police, so we can’t help you.”
Side note, being democratically elected does not mean your country is a democracy. Hitler was democratically elected. Doesn’t change the fact that he consolidated power after the fact.
And interestingly enough China, the topic of this thread, is consolidating power. This week their administration has announced their plans to abolish presidential term limits, clearing way for their president to remain in power indefinitely.
Yes, they would be the ideal person to give that advice.
I get that 'what-aboutism' is a logical fallacy in general, and it can prevent beneficial action from taking place. Isn't it a special case when the 'other party' is yourself? (obviously this is a US centric comment).
Bruce Lee was right in this regard, take what works from wherever you can. Worrying about the messenger being biased can ignore a really good tree in an overall forest.
Where you are wrong is the suggestion that this isn't entirely different. People bitch about US policy all the time. 50% of the political discussion on HN is bitching about US policy. I can't blame anyone for that (especially because it affects so many), but HN is a site based in the US, started by a VC firm based in the US, etc. It's super annoying when people from other countries who have never lived for any length of time in the US and act like their country is heaven on earth complain, but you get to complain, nobody stops you, you'll often get upvoted.
That doesn't happen in China. If the government (the party), which has been in power for 80 years, decides you don't get a voice, you don't get a voice. Given enough time, because we allow criticism and discussion, US policy will probably change as it has many times over the centuries. What's gonna happen in China? Nobody knows.
If it scares people that we now have strongmen dictators in Russia, the Philippines, Turkey, etc, and we've now got that in China, a nation with a small cadre of party leaders ruling over 1 billion people that have no real outlet to disagree, and which only gains more and more power, you really can't blame them. And if you're being honest with yourself, you can't really act like those systems are really the same thing.
The Chinese government is effectively the one described in 1984. If we're not that far gone in the West, it's because we allow things like free media and the publication of stuff like 1984. You can't really say they are the same thing.
Hey, gotta enhance shareholder value, man.. Fiduciary responsibility and all that.
> Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
This is perhaps because of several things:
1) That's the way "the rest of the world's" governments and corporate interests want their own countries to go, and have been pushing towards since decades. The rest of the world's leaders (most of them) could not care less for the lip service they pay to "freedom" et al.
2) A superpower gets to do whatever it likes "without much stir from the rest of the world". Heck, France and Britain had 1/3rd of the world, outside or their national borders, enslaved "without much stir from the rest of the world" until well after WWII. And suddenly the "rest of the world" will care for what China does to its own citizens?
3) It's nobody's business really what China does to its own citizens. There are other countries with the worlds largest prison population and most police shootings (by crazy amounts, like having 25% of the worlds prisoners for 4% of the worlds population), and they continue in that path "without much stir among the rest of the world". Why would it be different here?