if you reread your post, looking for whatabboutism, each critique you provide could be described as such in response to "we're great trading partners and will continue to be"

why are these whatabboutisms interesting but others are not? what makes you comfortable with working with americans, when its clear how they treat expat political dissidents like Assange and Snowden? why are you ok working with the US who's military is tuned for seizing iranian oil shipments? why are you favourable to a US reserve currency when the US has been abusing its power by putting all kinds of unilateral sanctions, and confiscating reserves without any due process? its not just china thats trying to make a new reserve currency, the EU does too, so they can buy iranian oil.

minus all the whatabboutisms, america and china exchanged ~$750B worth of goods and services in 2022, with neither's trangressions being a blocker. Americans by and large care much more about the cost and variety of goods than they do about fishing rights in the south china sea. americans dont care that much about US foreign policy goals, compared to shopping and culture.

>why are these whatabboutisms interesting but others are not?

I don't agree that they are whataboutisms for starters. I don't present them in response to criticisms of the U.S. to deflect away those criticisms, which is an essential, definitional characteristic of a whataboutism. Everything ususal to the critique of whataboutisms is sufficient I think to address the new examples you present in your comment, which I would say just fall in the same old category.

The critiques of China in this context are "interesting" because they relate to democratic norms, human rights, freedom of expression and the security environment that safeguards them.

And perhaps most importantly, I don't regard democratic values and economic transactions to be in a relationship where the loss of one is compensated by the presence of the other. This is a point which I believe is a relatively well understood cornerstone of western liberal democracies.

> And perhaps most importantly, I don't regard democratic values and economic transactions to be in a relationship where the loss of one is compensated by the presence of the other. This is a point which I believe is a relatively well understood cornerstone of western liberal democracies.

Western liberal democracies (so-called) don’t care about democratic values.

The commenter above you said that the US-China relationship is not zero-sum, and has brought enormous economic benefits to both sides.

Your response was essentially, "But what about Hong Kong, the South China Sea, Taiwan and political dissidents?" That's a complete non sequitur.

You moved the conversation from one about mutually beneficial economic relations to one about how awful China is because of XYZ. The natural response to that is that the US is awful because of a different litany of XYZ. Yet you've decided that we're now talking about how terrible China is (which is irrelevant to the original topic of mutually beneficial relations), and anything else is whataboutism.

Have you been to China? Know anyone from there? Or is your opinion on what they deserve based entirely on TV headlines? Do you relate to them as humans? That’s what I need to see before I take anyone’s condemnation of any group of people seriously.

I’m disputing none of the facts you raise, I just don’t think it’s reason enough to label the entire country as an enemy state and shut the door like a petulant child. Especially in light of the horrifying atrocities that we ourselves are funding.

The pentagon, not US citizenry, decide the adversaries of the state.

GP is just stating that fact. The citizens’ opinion on the matter are irrelevant - the pentagon is not a democratic institution.

That covers the China side of things. Presumably America is doing nothing against China. In that case things would be very lopsided and you (in general) would have a reason to be concerned. On the other hand if America was doing “adversarial” things in the direction of China as well, and both sides at sufficiently low intensity, it could still be argued that the two countries are not playing a zero-sum game overall because trade etc. happens in spite of all that.

You complain about "whataboutism," but your comment is just a long list of, "But what about this bad thing China did?"

Yet when other people point out much more horrible things the US has done in the same timeframe (like backing Israel to the hilt as it kills tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and destroys the entire Gaza strip), you respond with, "That's Whataboutism."

The list of offenses from China are foundational to the case for banning Tiktok. They belong to an argument that bootstraps itself. Those points aren't merely offered in a reactionary manner as a way to attempt to refute or deflect other criticisms.

What makes any specific point into whataboutism is its intended use as a counterpoint in a context where it doesn't change the outcome of the argument its responding to.

What does the South China Sea have to do with TikTok?

The "list of offenses" is just meant to say, "China bad, so TikTok bad."

The fact that they're using whataboutism should point to you that these posters very much are the adversaries of America that the poster is talking about. They are certainly not acting in your interests here.