So we shouldn't try to help people in other countries until we are literally perfect? Or are you making the argument that the US government is in fact more oppressive than the Chinese government?

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.

>So we shouldn't try to help people in other countries until we are literally perfect?

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.

>You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period

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.”

There's help and there's help. Are we talking help as in sending temporary emergency relief after a natural disaster or famine or help as in ousting a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a puppet dictator?

Ask the guy who said “You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period” to clarify.

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.

> Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?

Yes, they would be the ideal person to give that advice.

Dang, okay, that was a stupid analogy I made. It should have been something like "If you're obese and sickly, should you spend your time evangelizing the importance of diet and exercise to other unhealthy people instead of eating right and exercising yourself?" I don't think its even a good analogy anymore though.

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).

Consider it simply that you should endeavor to take good advice no matter the source, even if they seem hypocritical.

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.

Boom nailed it. I just don't want them correcting my form.

Would you want McDonalds to give dietary advice, while at the same time pushing burgers and fries down the world's throat?