You know, as much as I think the whataboutism is trying to draw equivalencies that don't exist and make excuses for other nation states doing bad things, I'm more accepting of it now. As long as it's called out for being that.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but we should always strive to be better. Just because the US could be doing as bad things as China or Russia, doesn't mean it shouldn't be better than it is now.
I mean, it's not like they were wrong about that. I don't know what to conclude from this other than most of history is terrible and the present often isn't so great either. Until we live in a utopia, there will be no shortage of targets for whataboutism.
The thing about whataboutism is that it was correct. It was only a logical fallacy in the eyes of US jingoists who didn't want to admit that, actually, the US had tons of human rights violations and the US vs. USSR conflict was not a conflict of good vs. evil.
When both A and B do a thing X, there are two potential logically sound conclusions: either that X is bad and both A and B are in the wrong, or that it's not and neither is. It is unsound to say that A doing X is a problem but B doing X is merely a rhetorical accusation that requires no response.
Your question is essentially whataboutism. Both things can be wrong. We can care about this instance without diluting the conversation talking about something else that is also bad.
I hold to account whoever has power now. I don't play the "whataboutism" game, because it is unwinnable. There was always someone in the past that has done worse.
Whataboutism is absolute poison. Are you actually arguing that we should ignore evil on the basis that prior evil wasn't sufficiently protested? Or are you just trying to score a point for your team? I don't get it.
Yes, it matters. Goods and wrongs don't cancel out, but they both matter.
It's funny you mention whataboutism, because that's what I was about to mention too.
This really goes to my main point: it's important to be able to levy criticism and to NOT give anyone a free pass, but many of the comments in here seem to be implicitly (and arguably, erroneously) splitting world actors into "good" and "evil". Hence the "us vs them" mentality and the mounting nationalism.
It is useful to realize that either side is moved by the allure of power, and it's a fool's errand to justify the current situation with whataboutism - either instance was wrong.
Stop with the whataboutism we don't know if there was a better alternative because we hadn't have the chance to see one. It's that easy it could have been worse or better.
In any comparison of two countries (or people) like this, there are two conflicting issues to keep in mind at the same time: 1) As you point out, no one is perfect, and any honest look at ourselves or the groups we're a part of will show us things we feel ashamed of. 2) Because of that, "whataboutism" is a very effective derailing tactic that anyone can use to dismiss almost any criticism.
Given that "no one should ever criticize anyone for anything" isn't what any of us wants, we need some norms and limits around whataboutism to keep it productive. I'm not sure what those should be though, and at the end of the day probably some amount of trust and good faith is required.
"Whataboutism" is a silly meme from Reddit not a real problem. Comparison of the current situation with other similar, but not exact, situations is literally one of the corner stone foundations of critical thought.
reply