So Putin is going to invade Amnesty International now? They’re not even a NATO member. And if you don’t support changing regimes that violate human rights and commit crimes against humanity, what are you?
Maybe you’re right, but in gross numbers, probably not. Here today, it doesn’t justify Putin’s war on his neighbors. Whatever his insecurities are, he’s learning the hard way to stay in his lane.
Uh-huh, thanks. Whataboutism remains a fallacious and frivolous tactic for derailing. There is no point made by whatabouting that couldn’t also be made the same without intentionally using it for a derail. So, nice try, but no.
You are missing the point. Do you really think that a Western empire and its (rarely reliable) media would sincerely care about and honestly report other states committing atrocities when there are already cops beating or killing thousands of civilians, thousands of ill prisoners dying from neglect, unconsensual destructions of native lands happening, thousands of nuclear weapons awaiting use, and other ignored problems running rampant, all right here on their own doorstep yearly? Do you think that that’s all just an unfortunate coincidence?
That link’s blanket dismissal of the claim of whataboutism is short-sighted and bad, but this isn’t even a case of whataboutism. @Julianus literally said the US engaging in regime change is good in response to a challenge to the source of the article. Responding with atrocities committed by the US is as relevant as it gets.
Whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy where a double standard is used to dismiss criticisms of one’s own behavior in order to focus instead on the actions of another.
So Putin is going to invade Amnesty International now? They’re not even a NATO member. And if you don’t support changing regimes that violate human rights and commit crimes against humanity, what are you?
There is no worse violator and murderer of millions of innocent people than the US empire.
List of US atrocities.
Amnesty international has notably supported every single one of the US’s wars.
Maybe you’re right, but in gross numbers, probably not. Here today, it doesn’t justify Putin’s war on his neighbors. Whatever his insecurities are, he’s learning the hard way to stay in his lane.
Whataboutism ✔️
Can we set up a daily whataboutism counter for Lemmy?
https://blackagendareport.com/praise-whataboutism
Uh-huh, thanks. Whataboutism remains a fallacious and frivolous tactic for derailing. There is no point made by whatabouting that couldn’t also be made the same without intentionally using it for a derail. So, nice try, but no.
What’s your next article?
You are missing the point. Do you really think that a Western empire and its (rarely reliable) media would sincerely care about and honestly report other states committing atrocities when there are already cops beating or killing thousands of civilians, thousands of ill prisoners dying from neglect, unconsensual destructions of native lands happening, thousands of nuclear weapons awaiting use, and other ignored problems running rampant, all right here on their own doorstep yearly? Do you think that that’s all just an unfortunate coincidence?
No, it isn’t.
That link’s blanket dismissal of the claim of whataboutism is short-sighted and bad, but this isn’t even a case of whataboutism. @Julianus literally said the US engaging in regime change is good in response to a challenge to the source of the article. Responding with atrocities committed by the US is as relevant as it gets.
Whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy where a double standard is used to dismiss criticisms of one’s own behavior in order to focus instead on the actions of another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Defense