Whataboutism
George Barker
This is going to be short and, well, not sweet, but short:
Whataboutism
Basically, as Putin (and Russia -- the Russian people, as opinion polls show, overwhelmingly support Putin, although hopefully as the magnitude of what he's doing and the sanctions sink in, that will change) has invaded Ukraine and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people have died and will die; as Germany -- once the scourge of Europe -- ends decades of peacefulness and commits to ramping up military spending; as Russia puts its nuclear -- NUCLEAR, as in the ultimate weapon of mass destruction -- weapons systems on high alert: as all these terrifying, dreadful, and foreboding things happen, if anyone wants to talk about, instead, the NATO intervention in the Balkans 30 years ago, or some other irrelevant topic, they aren't serious, and are worthy of nothing more than derision. There is no equivalence between any of the things they want to talk about and what is going on RIGHT NOW. What they want to do is distract and change the subject from the indefensible. Don't let them. Don't fall into the trap and engage in their 🐂💩
. Instead, point out what they're trying to do and move on.
I have thought of this quotation many, many times over the years, ever since I first heard it in the film Ghandi. And I think it's almost absolutely true -- with a few caveats. First, these kinds of words are poor comfort to the dead and wounded and suffering as a result of the actions of the tyrants and murderers, and second, if the nuclear bombs end up flying, they'll be no comfort at all. We've been blessed with many decades of relative peace and prosperity, and one of the things that this event ought to remind us all of is that what we have come to take for granted -- peace and prosperity -- are actually not the normal state of affairs. It takes work. Because although the tyrants and murderers always fall in the end, there is also always a new one stepping up to take their place.
Not as short as I thought, but there it is.
Comments
THIS!!!
it's all very very simple 😉
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMqX2DRXwAINc81.jpg
https://www.sott.net/image/s22/451225/large/USA_Bombing_resized.jpg
share please!!!
Whataboutism - someone cant read.
For a country that doesn't exist, Ukraine seems to be putting up quite a fight. It's almost as if they see themselves as a separate country from Russia with the right to self determination, and want nothing to do with it. Almost. 🤔
https://youtu.be/Ca9OX9tFeEs
O7
o/
Yes.
And maybe i shouldn't engage in it, i just think it is funny cause i don't think it makes much sense what they are arguing And you could turn it back on them too.
Cause when we do it, it is bad, but if they do it is good.
And there is such a thing as Facts.
I understand your reasoning, but the mere fact of the arguing distracts from what's important -- which is their goal.
☑️
some sense. finally
Correct, I have zero - 0 - nada, zip, null patience over for those. Just block, ignore, unfriend, mute or what option there is.
/Signed once a very patient person.
"Whataboutism" is one of the tools that the cowards have for supporting the aggressor.
If I could endorse this a hundred times, I would.
Can someone from Ukraine in RL please explain the Azov battalion to me. I am interested to know the true story about it and am hoping someone more familiar can shed some light. I cant find much information in the news and I know that the news doesn't always provide the best insight.
They sound like the 'Proud Boys' we have here in the USA.
That's what I was thinking but sometimes its hard to grasp a situation from afar. I admittedly know nothing of Ukrainian culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
I already read the wiki and did my own research. I am hoping I can get some Ukrainian prospective instead of seeing foreign issues through an American lens.
🇷🇺
Pesaditos todos con mezclar eRepublik con la VR
Even though I was trying to stay out of these issues, I do agree with this and I have nothing but respect for Mahatma Ghandi.
In the meantime, I have also left a collection of links from credible sources concerning the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine: [Real World] - Humanitarian Links for Ukraine with love! - https://www.erepublik.com/pt/article/-real-world-humanitarian-links-for-ukraine-with-love--2749420/1/20
@George Barker, please I hope you don't mind me sharing my article and the links. 🙂
Fine by me!
Thank you man 😃
Well said
Yes
[removed]
The problem is you are not a normal person.
Just a fool with a very limited brain capacity.
Иди нахуй, блядь!
🇺🇦
Glory Ukraine!
Glory to the heroes!
"Don't look up." 😏
I have a question: why the movers and shakers of USAn foreign policy have not been listening to their own experts since the end of Cold War? I think the reason is that this war is something they intended to achieve.
Food for thought: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592
So the US WANTED Putin to invade Georgia and Chechen and now, Ukraine, WANTED him to threaten nuclear war. Because ... why? Of what benefit is this to the US, or anybody else? And there are many experts with many opinions. Picking out a few who say what you want them to say and pretending they represent all experts is just sloppy non-thinking -- at best. At worst (and most likely), it's the product of a chronically tendentious mind.
I appreciate your answer; nevertheless, it needs some "minor" corrections.
1. Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation since the imperial times. Russia cannot "invade" Chechnya any more than the USA could, e. g. Nebraska, provided there was a violent insurrection in that state. Or, for instance, according to USAn historians the USAn attack on the Confederate States of America cannot be considered an invasion either. Do you agree or disagree with them?
So the two Chechnyan Wars were not invasions, rather two violent insurrections were put down by Russia, albeit in an also very violent way.
2. Russia invaded Georgia after the latter had invaded two breakaway "republiks" under Russian protection. Georgia had shelled the area of Southern Ossetia, killing a couple of Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinvali and then invading the area. Russia then initiated a counterattack that routed the Georgian military in a couple of days. The war ended when Russian troops were ordered to halt some 50 km from the Georgian capital Tbilisi and subsequently were withdrawn.
So this was again not an invasion but an act of self-defense.
3. Would you mind answering my question, i. e. why the USAn government did not heed the advice of these guys? I'd like to know your opinion.
So you repeat Russian propaganda and call it "correction." As you wish.
As for answering your question, the answer is obvious: the U.S. followed the advice of OTHER experts. I had thought that was obvious from my post, when I pointed out that Kennan (who hadn't been a part of policy making since the 1950s) et al are hardly the only experts in the world. So now answer my question, if only to yourself: why is it that in your mind only the people who say what you want said are worth considering? And the other question you skipped by: What does the US get out of somehow brilliantly luring poor Putin into his wars? You made, and obviously believe, the conspiratorial accusation, so WHY did the US do it? Does it make sense?
1. Calling facts propaganda reeks of obvious myopia. Or a deliberate lie. You being a USAn I tend to opt for the less damning explanation, i. e. you do not want to KNOW these facts.
Feel free to prove them wrong or just swallow another fact: you were wrong about them.
2. Your answer is inadequate. Of course your government had listened to other experts. But this is not a real explanation. My question targeted the reason for their decision, and especially your opinion on why they had decided to do so.
Here's your answer, which anyone could get on their own: NATO wanted these countries to have the option of joining because they -- obviously rightly -- saw Russia and Putin as what they are: expansionist and revanchist, and no amount of appeasement would change that. In fact, had people like Kennan had their way, the Soviet Union would probably still exist, and your proto-fascist Fidesz-run country would still be living under Soviet rule, although that's another topic.
And now, the key question which you don't answer because you can't: WHY WOULD THE US AND NATO WANT TO SOMEHOW LURE RUSSIA INTO ATTACKING ITS NEIGHBORS? Why would a prosperous and peaceful Europe WANT Russia to shatter that state of affairs? It makes no sense. Only a conspiratorial-minded fool would even entertain it as in the realm of possible, let alone reasonable. And finally, the whole point of this is to distract from who actually started all this. RUSSIA annexed Crimea. RUSSIA is attacking Ukraine. Nobody else is responsible for it except RUSSIA, no matter how desperately and ridiculously you try to change the subject.
First I advise you against using weasel words such as 'conspiratorial', 'Russian propaganda', 'proto-fascist', 'appeasement' or 'revanchist' in our dispute. They will not help your case, indeed, they are counterproductive because I am neither USAn nor brainwashed to feel ashamed and back off facing such expressions. These words are not trump cards nor do they work. Instead you just may make yourself a target of mild amusement at best or ridicule at worst. In addition, moving towards a more confrontational, even insulting language you might appear to be losing it and you probably do not want that.
Second, since you haven't managed to prove either that Chechnya was not part of Russia at the time of the Soviet collapse or that it was Russia that initiated the Russo-Georgian war, I'd like you to acknowledge that you were wrong with your facts in both of these cases such that we can move on.
Third, I appreciate that after some needless wasting of time you managed to answer my question. However, assuming that I don't answer your question because I won't be able to is a tad optimistic on your part. I definitely will answer once we manage to close our abovementioned issues. However, blaming your own machinations on your opponent is unfair - and it was you who desperately kept trying to change the subject and trying to coerce me to answer YOUR question instead of doing the same for ME.
You don't know what the term "weasel-word" means. Before giving advice, look it up.
As for the rest of it, just more of an attempt to deflect attention from Russia's destructive aggression. Either you think Russia is some kind of victim of a NATO plot, or Russia is, as I have stated, and most of the world has concluded, a revanchist menace. The rest is just 🐂💩 and I'll ignore it from now on as having been dealt with.
Indeed, I might have used the wrong expression. My bad.
You own me.
But... let's just stop for a moment! In your first reply you incorrectly used the name of the Chechen Republik, i. e. Chechnya as "Chechen". Ooopsie-daisy! Before lecturing others about them giving you advice you need to get your spelling right. Go back to Spelling 101. After all, English is YOUR first language but only a second one for ME.
So decision reversed - I own YOU.
On a somewhat more serious note: you started your counter-argument with two grave factual errors and still hesitate to acknowledge it and correct yourself. It follows that you are indeed incapable of rational argument and thus presenting my case might be an actual waste of time for the both of us.
So I agree with your position outlined in the latter part of your last comment and accept your surrender.
Farewell.
Mahatma Gandhi. talked about the Engkish gentlemen