No, that's entirely what "whataboutism" is used to do.

Here is an example of how every single invocation of whataboutism happens.

Person A: "We have to defend Ukrainian democracy!"

Person B: "But America supports brutal autocracies all over the world."

Person A: "Whataboutism!"

So what is being accomplished here? Easy. Person B has pointed out that Person A has tried to establish a universal trait, that America/Canada/whoever supports democracy and that's why they support Ukraine. However, this universal trait is obviously not true, because of support for X/Y/Z Arab monarchy or fascist dictatorship. So, having shown that this trait cannot possibly be the reason for supporting Ukraine, the question then becomes "what is the real reason for supporting Ukraine?" Person A doesn't want to answer that question, and so "whataboutism" is invoked to stop the conversation from deviating away from fantasy and towards reality.

Invoking "whataboutism" is purely about avoiding being honest.

This post was edited by kusotarre1 on Sep 18 2022 11:11pm

there are two kinds of people

1 - people who believe that people should have a right to self determination
2 - commies/nazis

And as a perfect recapitulation of the above argument: America supports all sorts of governments who abrogate the right to self-determination, including in Ukraine itself, so that cannot be the reason.

I dont think he read kusotarre1's post properly as he has completely missed the point. In order to fully understand where we are we need to look back, from different viewpoints, to see how we got here. If this then questions the actions/motives of any/all parties/different sides, so be it. Blaming one side is ever a poor notion to my mind (as there are few instances where 1 side is completely in the wrong) but is a very popular position to take in this thread, this subforum and in real life. My position is that this is a subforum for political discussion and debate and that the term whataboutism is being incorrectly ussd when users are incapable or unwilling of debate.

Finally, in direct response to : the idea of the US bringing democracy to the world, of having shared values, is that if all nations run the same way we would have more in common which would therefore mean we would all be friends. This is a very naive position for people to take - that the worlds problems would all go away if every country was democratic. I see that as complete fantasy. The US has interests and its Their Interests above all else.

This post was edited by ferdia on Sep 19 2022 03:36am

No...

Here are some examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rican_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valuable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1949_Syrian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang_in_Burma#CIA_connection_and_opium_trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBFortune

You can easily go on.

Im not american
Ukraine wants closer ties with the west and they should be free to pursue that
Russia is an authoritarian shithole that doesn't like neighbors who aren't vassal states

Some in Ukraine, (most now with the war) want a closer relationship with the west, some wanted to maintain a close relationship with Russia. You care about self-determination right? How about the east/southern parts of Ukraine who in the last election pre-war voted to be pro-Russia? If you care about logical consistency that side should also get a say no?

Doesn't Russia have a long history of genocide through forced population transfers and filling in the displaced populations with its own citizens which they then use as a pretext for annexing the newly russia friendly region? I have my doubts about the history behind how these regions became russia friendly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars

Genocide is a harsh way to frame this, while this was true during Soviet times that's not the case now nor has it been for decades really. You're looking at this one sided IMO. It doesn't really matter how people became pro-Russian in those parts at this point. Let's say they were brainwashed through soviet propaganda or whatever, does that mean we can discard their opinions now and tell them to stfu and in an authoritarian manner tell them what to believe?

If you really care about self-determination you don't try to degrade or downplay why someone believes something. The south and the east has always been fairly Russian. They speak Russian and they voted pro-Russian. By your own logic you would should want self-determination for them.

this i can completely agree with.



Alot of world powers have a history of genocide. this is probably a point best moved on from.
but as wiki is being shared, here is my contribution, a bit more comprehensive (again, I dont single out): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples

educational reading i guess, here is a quote from it:

"It is also apparent that the shared history of the hemisphere is one which is framed by the dual tragedies of genocide and slavery, both of which are part of the legacy of the European invasions of the past 500 years. Indigenous people both north and south were displaced, died of disease, and were killed by Europeans through slavery, rape, and war. In 1491, about 145 million people lived in the western hemisphere. By 1691, the population of indigenous Americans had declined by 90–95 percent, or by around 130 million people.[37]"

/e i think we had this discussion about 200 pages ago, anyway, superpowers of today got there by walking over other peoples.

This post was edited by ferdia on Sep 19 2022 07:55am