Attacking a position solely because it is inconsistent is the definition of whataboutism. (And perfect consistency is the enemy of improving short-term outcomes.)

"A propaganda technique where criticisms are deflected by raising corresponding criticisms of the opposite side."[0]

OP is not deflecting criticisms of Russia, OP is pointing out that the claim that NC is taking a principled stance is blatantly false. Obviously NC can still choose to proceed since they believe that this is a net benefit, but they cannot claim it is a principled stance.

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutism

> And perfect consistency is the enemy of improving short-term outcomes.

Sure, I can agree with that point. But everyone can agree that pointing out inconsistency is definitionally not whataboutism.

Whether you call it whataboutism or something else, my point remains: it is still a cheap argument anyone can throw out that isn't HN-caliber.

Calling repeatedly for violent revolution isn't HN-caliber certainly but that hasn't stopped you from doing it all over this thread. <- This is whataboutism by the way.

Sorry, what was the point of this?

Sorry, that was a bit rude and pointless. I apologize. I am just frustrated that your comments all over this thread are suggesting that people should take up arms and violently overthrow their governments in Venezuela and Russia, but you are here policing good-taste commenting on HN.

I don't really know how to address the meat of your point, in that I think OP's point is a perfectly legitimate one and you don't, and I think it is unlikely that I would ever be able to convince you (and you will certainly never be able to convince me).

No, crying out "whataboutism" is precisely what is wrong with our discourse ATM. We are simply unprincipled or contradictory in huge swathes of our daily lives and especially when it comes to these "large" issues. And it is an especially important element in a site like HN with many technical and (rule or process) orientated people. You have to peel back the layers, and the GP comment is spot on in that it spawns a discussion along the lines of "why is this one different?" If we figure out that difference and the collective news and opinion's community apparent double-standard (or not) then we have a good place to allow us to move forward.

Address it, don't dismiss it.

Nobody’s perfect; everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. And we have more pressing matters to address right now, such as Russia invading Ukraine. If a company wants to stop doing business in a country that’s doing wrong, we should support that. If that same company (or a different one) wants to boycott the U.S., they’re welcome to do that, too. People have their reasons for doing things and they’re not always consistent, because life is complex and nuanced, actions must be prioritized, and choices often involve weighing different trade-offs.