• @hark
    link
    -29 months ago

    You mean like how the Biden administration picks and chooses with its stances on Russia and Israel? Per capita, Israel is actually committing the much worse atrocity, but the same people moralizing about Russia’s actions are telling people to shut up about Israel. Saying you can’t criticize one thing because other bad things are happening is textbook whataboutism, but it’s obvious that whataboutism is a term used by Americans solely as a shield for all their bad actions (i.e. don’t call us out on our hypocrisy because we flooded the news with our talking points first). I criticize China for its horrific treatment of Uighurs and I criticize Israel for its atrocities.

    As for consumerism, you don’t have to worry about that from me. I’m pretty sure you buy more shit from China than I do, since I barely buy anything at all.

    • @assassin_aragorn
      link
      19 months ago

      I criticize China for its horrific treatment of Uighurs and I criticize Israel for its atrocities.

      Then we have no disagreement. Especially since you don’t take the position that buying/voting is a full throated endorsement of the genocides.

      My issue with the person was their absolutist stance that suggested you shouldn’t vote for Biden or do anything which could support a genocide supporting regime. You can and should criticize Biden and China while voting or buying their goods. But what you do to one, you should do to the other. It’s hypocritical to refuse to vote for Biden for the Palestinian genocide while buying goods from China that support the Uighur genocide. And vice versa – refusing to buy Chinese but being fine with voting for Biden.

      Does that make sense? Basically, you shouldn’t pick and choose. You criticize it all or you excuse it all. If you refuse to support one, you refuse to support them all. If you tell people it isn’t real and is bullshit propaganda, you say that for all of them.

      • @hark
        link
        19 months ago

        People have their own red lines and while they may seem conflicting or hypocritical, they are their own. Bringing up one separate thing in response to another is whataboutism, plain and simple. That was my point with my initial response. All that bringing up Uighurs did was divert the discussion towards other things, which is the point of whataboutism.

        • @assassin_aragorn
          link
          19 months ago

          Sure, my point is just that they aren’t following their stated red line. It isn’t whataboutism to challenge someone on a seeming exception to their belief.

          They made an absolutist statement about genocide. I asked about a specific case to see if their belief actually was absolutist. I did not divert the topic by asking if that goes for all genocides. They diverted it by saying it doesn’t.