|
mawarannahr posted:Why is whataboutism bad and why do you think it should it be proscribed? Because it's loving useless and serves no purpose other than to deflect and prevent discussion of the thread topic. It's creating an artificial requirement that before we discuss China, we must first discuss whether or not someone besides China did a a thing. This needs to be moderated strictly because it's to the point where every single discussion devolves into discussing domestic US issues by the end of the page.
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Best Friends posted:The cycle of China thread discussions often is: Perfect example here. It's implying discussing an ongoing crime against humanity isn't worth discussing. They are openly demonstrating the intent is to inhibit debate by minimizing mistreatment of a vulnerable population. No one has called Uighur oppression unique in history, it IS unusual and terrible as is every genocide whether cultural or not, and almost EVERY single time it's directed at someone who has no problem agreeing that the US has treated it's ethnic minorities terribly and in similar ways.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2022 07:00
|
|
|
exmarx posted:the term 'whataboutism' is worthless, since it generally just means 'pointing out hypocrisy' – if anything, it would be good if the people who use it reflected on why their criticism is determined by who the actor is, rather than the act itself Because it's just negating the purpose of the thread. 9 times out of 10 it's directed at someone who has no qualms admitting that the US government is terrible. The reason it's not being discussed is because what some other entity did doesn't change the reality of what is happening in Xinjiang as the biggest example. Where is the discussion expected to go after you have had the poster agree that all forms of genocide are bad if not back to the topic of the thread?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 08:11
|
|