[imiric]

It's frustrating because it's not the topic of conversation, and it only serves to derail it as we're doing now.

If we're discussing the high cost of apples and someone brings up oranges, it doesn't change the fact that apples are expensive.

> Do you think I'm a bot because I disagree with you?

No, but a lazy comment doing s/China/USA/ certainly reads like it. And if you've seen some of the threads on Reddit or Twitter it becomes pretty clear some accounts search for any negative discussion about China and interject with whataboutism, which would be pretty easy to automate.

[krageon]

> it's not the topic of conversation

Yes it is, because the topic invariably includes "alternatives" or things that are "better". Those things are nearly always things the US has made. They are not better. Yes, it's bad. Everyone knows this. Adding value to that conversation is giving alternatives or offering some new insight into the nature of badness and how it's different flavours should be looked upon.

[imiric]

Introducing ideas associated to the topic that expand it and offer new perspectives is of course welcomed.

The issue with the China apologist comments is that their intent is to damage control by attacking the negative sentiments that would make the country look bad and steering the conversation towards the evils of other countries, i.e. whataboutism. This behavior is so prevalent online that you'd be hard pressed to find any discussion that criticizes China without it.

I'd also find it frustrating if in any thread that criticizes the US there would be comments about how China is worse. That might be the case, but it doesn't minimize US' problems and only distracts from discussing them. Yet such comments are much less frequent--I'm not sure if I've ever seen one.