Whataboutism, and possibly propaganda. They are both horrible and should not exist. Moral superiority doesn’t matter if people are being systematically murdered.
When dealing with hypocrites, whataboutism is the correct and logically consistent response.
People who complain about whataboutism are 99% hypocrites whose hypocrisy has been pointed out. And they have no rational arguments to defend their view other than deflecting the topic.
Citations Needed podcast:
Whataboutism - The Media’s Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US PolicySince the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.
But what if “whataboutism” isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term “whataboutism” has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.
(Mass dislikes time!)
Yes, the US does evil shit in the Middle East. Killing brown-skinned practitioners of the other Abrahamic religion overseas is an American tradition.
That still doesn’t change the fact that China is persecuting Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province.
You can’t shit-talk one authoritarian state and cheer on another.
1
You can’t shit-talk one authoritarian state and cheer on another.
“Authoritarian state” is a bullshit category. Authoritarian states are just states insufficiently subservient to Washington. It’s no more or less coherent than “terrorist state,” which the US uses in the same way.
“Authoritarianism” is the contemporary word for “totalitarianism,” which is just an erudite-seming term for horseshoe theory, which is horseshit. Previously:
- ‘Horseshoe theory’ is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Academic_studies_and_criticism
- Funny thing about Hannah Arendt’s construction of “totalitarianism”: She came from a bourgeois family and so was unsurprisingly anti-communist, and she was funded & promoted by the CIA.
Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism
One of the centerpieces of the cultural cold war was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was revealed in 1966 to be a CIA front. Hugh Wilford, who has researched the topic extensively, described the CCF as nothing short of one of the largest patrons of art and culture in the history of the world. Established in 1950, it promoted on the international scene the work of collaborationist academics such as Raymond Aron and Hannah Arendt over and against their Marxian rivals, including the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir.
That still doesn’t change the fact that China is persecuting Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.
Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves.
https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330 #HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.
- The Uyghur Human Rights Project is a product of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is the American government’s main regime change NGO.
- A Reddit AMA Claiming To Be A Uyghur Quickly Exposes A CIA Asset Slandering China
- The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified
- Uyghur genocide allegations
- American Debunks All Major Western Propaganda on Uyghurs and Xinjiang
- US-Funded Uyghur Activists Train as Soldiers of Empire
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
Sources:
- china news propaganda site
- medium article from rando
- project syndicate link which is an op-ed site (not news)
- a wiki page from an incredibly biased group
- a youtube link…
- a site calling itself a news site, yet no actual credentials, but seems to be associated with China (Ajit Singh has written Chinese propaganda books)
- a substack link
This has to be the least compelling list of evidence one could provide, and yet you get upvotes because it looks like you’ve provided proof of something. All you’ve done is provide a lot of incredibly, seriously biased opinions with no actual facts at all.
Wow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.
This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.
- Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
- Propaganda model
- Edward Bernays
- Walter Lippmann
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Powell Memorandum
- The Trilateral Commission’s report, The Crisis of Democracy
* I’ve criticized MBFC & Ad Fontes before:
Nobody said anything about MBFC. Good luck, like I said in another comment I’m not going to argue with anyone from .ml. I was pointing out the faults in your sources because they’re not proper sources no matter what region of the world you’re from.
As opposed to all those unbiased sources you’ve provided, lol.
I’m absolutely not going to provide sources or even argue with anyone from .ml on an .ml community because it’s pointless. You all do not care about proper sourcing and think it’s even a detractor because it’s “western”. I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
You’re conflating “proper sourcing” with being western, that’s already an error, and second of all it’s the west that has been most prominently pushing the genocide theory. Of course it’s going to be contested by China. The validity of sources used by posts on YouTube and Medium aren’t in question because of where they are hosted, they are often hosted on these kinds of platforms because opposing western narratives gets you blacklisted.
If that were true then non western sources would have plenty of news articles, yet all ml users post are things directly from Russia or China or “alternative” “sources” like medium (which isn’t a source). There are plenty of regimes that do not align with anything America has to say, yet no news articles from them.
Disclaimer: not .ml.
Critisizing someone’s sources and then refusing to provide any other ones “because it’s pointless” seems a little hypocritical to me.
I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
So we should trust your word over someone’s who has at least put in the effort to provide sources?
Look, you don’t need to prove anything, but if you’re gonna argue or act like you’re defending people from misinformation, then I’d expect to see more than just “don’t listen to that guy”. It’s not exactly easy finding objective information about various issues in China and filtering out all the American propaganda. Personally, I’d very much appreciate any links that don’t lead to obvious manipulation.
If someone claims to solve string theory and then provides shit sources there is never an obligation to provide sources that solve string theory. Pointing out sources are shit is part of science. I don’t need to provide a counter argument because that’s not the purpose of the conversation. I don’t need to provide proof of the alternative because the only thing I’m trying to accomplish is to stop this liar from spreading misinformation.
A lie can travel around the world before the truth takes a few steps. That’s exactly what that user is trying to do. Post as many lies as possible so that refuting them takes hours if not days if not months or years.
How can you know if the sources really are bad if it’s not obvious aftet reading? Do you just trust a random person’s words? In this case, you’re essentially arbitrarily picking one version over another.
The problem with ‘stopping lies’ is it requires effort, which not everyone may wish to dedicate. I’m by no means denouncing the other person for trying to stop misinformation (assuming that’s the case, since I still have no idea). However, it’s all in vain if they don’t bother to do anything to prove their point.
Anyone can post misinformation as sources, just as anyone can post that the sources are bad. Fundamentally there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the two. If you really feel the need to defend people from being misinformed, some better source or other form of proof, or at the very least a deeper explanation would go a long way.
Would you prefer something from America’s own fox news or New York Times?
No, neither. You’re making up a position and pretending like I believe that to make my argument look weak. I’m not the one posting shit sources.
