[verdverm]

It can be both at the same time, which I would agree it is. Whataboutism seeks to inject other topics instead of focusing on the one at hand

[gizmo]

I'm not inviting people to change the topic with my post. Hetzners actions are clearly because of sanctions against Russia. They say so in their email. My response asks whether "the geopolitical situation" is a good justification, given that there are many comparable geopolitical situations where Europe would never respond with sanctions like these.

[verdverm]

There are contradictions in your comments, one example

> Maybe Hetzner is acting out of principle, maybe they choose to do this because of optics.

> Hetzners actions are clearly because of sanctions against Russia. They say so in their email.

> My response asks whether "the geopolitical situation" is a good justification

It's very hard to follow your logic and what you think is the reason Hetzner is cancelling some customers

Either way, your original comment is whataboutism as judged by HN members. Maybe it is not elsewhere, but it seems here it is

[gizmo]

We don't know what motivates the Hetzner executives. We only know what their actions are. We don't know whether they agree with the sanctions against Russia. But clearly their actions are because of the sanctions. Hetzner is not going to refuse to do business with an entire country entirely out of their own accord.

As for whataboutism, downvotes here can also represent simple disagreement. The first comment suggested that Europe "really tried", i.e. that Europe is acting with noble and good intentions. I think that's ahistorical, but I can see how people who believe that take offense to my post.

[rufus_foreman]

If pointing out hypocrisy is whataboutism, then I see no problem with whataboutism. Pointing out hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy, it is something that should be done more frequently.

If you believe that a country that invades another country should be the target of international sanctions, you believe that the US, along with many other countries, should be the target of international sanctions.

Do the people arguing that Russia should be the target of international sanctions act as if they believe the US should be the target of international sanctions? For the most part, they do not. It makes me question whether the real reason they want sanctions on Russia is because Russia invaded another country. Maybe the real rule is that when countries that you oppose invade another country, they should be the target of sanctions. That seems the be the rule that is actually practiced.

[verdverm]

This pretty much describes great power conflict and competition between democracies and authoritarian states. There are fundamental differences that make treating them the same unreasonable to most in the west.