[nathanaldensr]

They want to express hypocrisy. When someone omits that other groups exhibit the same behavior as the group they're complaining about, it's dishonest to attempt to file a grievance without disclosing full information. Consider it a lack of "informed consent," to borrow a medical term.

[KingOfCoders]

But it can only be hypocrisy in the case of (2). So whenever someone invokes whataboutism, they mean "Native Americans and settlers both are evil"?

So they agree with my point about the genocide of Native Americans, the stealing of land, oil, gas, gold, but want me to add "Native americans are bad too because they did the same" which I should have mentioned.

Therefore they would be fine with "Modern Americans are rich because they stole the land, gas, oil, gold from the Native Americans, who stole it from someone else before".

I always thought they considered their opinion a counter argument, I never saw it as agreement with my points.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[s1artibartfast]

If they both stole, how is that a complete explanation for why Americans are richer than Europeans?

Why aren't the native Americans richer than the Europeans? Did the Europeans not also steal?

What about the China? The han conquered a lot of land. Why aren't they richer than Americans?

It just seems a grossly inadequate model to predict national wealth in 2024.

[KingOfCoders]

"What about the China?"

What about the English language?

[s1artibartfast]

congratulations, you found a typo. That does not validate everything you said and invalidate anything I did.

[KingOfCoders]

Sorry had to point that out, I could not understand the logic of your post otherwise, I only know Aristotelian logic.

As an example "Why aren't the native Americans richer than the Europeans?"

Because as I've said everything has been stolen from them? How can they be richer if everything has been stolen from them? You're a millionaire, I steal your money. "I'm rich because I've stolen from you". Then someone says "Why isn't the millionaire rich, he had a million". This is where my understanding of your logic breaks down.

"That does not validate everything you said and invalidate anything I did."

That was not the intention, sorry if you felt offended.

[s1artibartfast]

My point is you attribute the entirety of success to to theft, and I think there is a lot more to it. At a minimum, there is the ability to defend and retain what was taken. There is also the ability to utilize the resources one possesses.

The answer to the question "why Americans are so rich" is obviously much much bigger (and more interesting) than that they stole resources from indigenous people.

>That was not the intention, sorry if you felt offended.

What was the intention? I thought you were just being a dismissive asshole, ignoring the rest of a post. Was it a joke that fell flat? were you planning to come back and engage with the other six sentences later?