[mygo]

It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.

[Passthepeas]

I think it does more to illustrate hypocrisy and priorities than anything; it's like worrying about another driver's flat tire, when your own car is literally on fire. Though I do understand and agree with your overall sentiment.

[losteric]

On the other hand, it's reasonable to worry about another driver's car being on fire despite your own flat tire.

[seanmcdirmid]

Huh? No, these are simply USSR-style what-aboutisms that China has inherited.

[coldtea]

Accusation of "what-aboutism" is the real BS cold-war trick (notice how it's also one-sided itself: it's an accusation against the other side of which the good people of our side are clear).

It amounts to "put on blinders and follow your side when it accuses the other, and never see things in perspective".

It generally means that only one side has the right to criticize (if the other side answers back, it's "whataboutism") -- and that third parties shouldn't call bot the pot and kettle black (it's whataboutism to even mention the pot), and instead should listen to the pot accusing the kettle of blackness.

Even worse when it's not bloody business of the pot what the kettle does -- but they want to make it so anyway, because they like to boss other kitchen implements around.

[seanmcdirmid]

There is nothing different from the above what aboutisms to the ones the USSR used, they are actually almost verbatim. China throws around logical fallacies (what aboutism, red herrings, slippery slopes) all the time, it makes me wonder if chinese high schools teach their positive use in rhetoric/debate classes.

I’m one of the first ones to criticize the USA, there is plenty that is wrong to talk about! But open up a thread that is critical of the USA and you’ll rarely see Americans bringing up problems in China, yet discussions about China almost always lead back to discussions about the USA! When china is ready to talk about its problems without referring to the USA, well, it will be ready to become a superpower. Right now they just come off as insecure.

[coldtea]

>It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies.

Actually the argument is more like: bad guys shouldn't go after bad guys. It's hypocritical, self-serving in the name of some "cause", and creates worse outcomes.

You know, like a bad guy going in to bring "democracy" (assert control for strategic interests and/or ensure cheap oil and favorable currency use) and ends up in chaos, civil war, fundamentalism, and refugee waves. Time and again.

But I guess hypocrisy never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.

As for good guys, they can go after the bad guys all they want, and we'll even cheer for them.

[mygo]

Fallacy.

Bad guys can go after bad guys. Good guys can still go after the remaining bad guys.

If we sit around waiting for he without sin to cast the stones, if on the off-chance that such a rare soul exists, then that small army-of-one will be outnumbered and overpowered and neutralized.

[elago]

As a US citizen it is a valid argument because those "other guys" is our own country.

It's not "don't go after those guys", but "take care of our own problems first". This way, when offering solutions to other oppressive countries we wouldn't look like hypocrites.

Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?

[phyller]

So we shouldn't try to help people in other countries until we are literally perfect? Or are you making the argument that the US government is in fact more oppressive than the Chinese government?

The reality for the US is if it tries to take action to improve perceived injustices in the world, it is being hypocritical and "imperialist". If it does nothing, it is selfish and heartless, having the power to help but doing nothing. As far as the US goes, we are screwed either way.

Regardless, I think I can look at what is happening in China, not like it, and feel foreboding about the future. This isn't some small country somewhere. This is the most populous country in the world and I empathize with the people who live there. And frankly, China is the heir apparent to the US as the global super power. This concerns us all.

[coldtea]

>So we shouldn't try to help people in other countries until we are literally perfect?

You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period. Who appointed you world cop? Besides, it always ends up in tears (besides it being hypocritical help with strategic ambitions attached from the establishment side, even if ordinary people mean it sincerely).

>Or are you making the argument that the US government is in fact more oppressive than the Chinese government?

Internally, not. Globally, surely yes.

[mygo]

>You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period

So when oppressed people inside an imperfect country are pleading for help from another imperfect country which is capable of helping,

The country being begged to help should go “sorry, we’re imperfect, can’t help. Besides, even though you’re asking for our help and we can certainly help, we’re not the global police, so we can’t help you.”

[dagw]

There's help and there's help. Are we talking help as in sending temporary emergency relief after a natural disaster or famine or help as in ousting a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a puppet dictator?

[mygo]

Ask the guy who said “You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period” to clarify.

Side note, being democratically elected does not mean your country is a democracy. Hitler was democratically elected. Doesn’t change the fact that he consolidated power after the fact.

And interestingly enough China, the topic of this thread, is consolidating power. This week their administration has announced their plans to abolish presidential term limits, clearing way for their president to remain in power indefinitely.

[mitchty]

> Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?

Yes, they would be the ideal person to give that advice.

[elago]

Dang, okay, that was a stupid analogy I made. It should have been something like "If you're obese and sickly, should you spend your time evangelizing the importance of diet and exercise to other unhealthy people instead of eating right and exercising yourself?" I don't think its even a good analogy anymore though.

I get that 'what-aboutism' is a logical fallacy in general, and it can prevent beneficial action from taking place. Isn't it a special case when the 'other party' is yourself? (obviously this is a US centric comment).

[mitchty]

Consider it simply that you should endeavor to take good advice no matter the source, even if they seem hypocritical.

Bruce Lee was right in this regard, take what works from wherever you can. Worrying about the messenger being biased can ignore a really good tree in an overall forest.

[jsonderulio]

Boom nailed it. I just don't want them correcting my form.

[coldtea]

Would you want McDonalds to give dietary advice, while at the same time pushing burgers and fries down the world's throat?