Post #427,636
2/21/19 2:17:08 PM
2/21/19 2:17:08 PM
|
Meh.
... 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. Citation needed. ;-) Seriously, come on folks. Throwing "100%" numbers around like that is laughable. It makes me not want to waste my time on it. It is possible to have a conversation about what X is doing without automatically bringing up what Y is doing. If you want to talk about what Y is doing, then do so, but not when the topic is what X is doing. One can't talk about every aspect of a topic at once. Scope-creep isn't a way to have a fruitful discussion. This isn't hard. And being an almost-apologist for Putin's Russia isn't a good look... From March 2018: But what no one talks about, what was Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador about? He wasn’t talking about “Let’s collude with Vladimir Putin.” He was trying to convince the Russians to back Israel’s position against Barack Obama, in the waning days of his presidency, at the United Nations, when Obama was saying he was going to abstain on a vote about Palestine and Israel, which, you know, of course, enraged Israel and Netanyahu. So, the story with Flynn, the real story with Flynn, was one of Israeli collusion and advocating that the Russians, who normally would be on the opposite side, come on board with the incoming administration’s position on Israel.
You know, I haven’t seen much evidence of active conspiracy. You have a lot of lying. You have a lot of questions that, obviously, should be answered. But I would just caution that if you go so far down the line of this Trump-is-in-bed-with-Putin thing, that it’s going to undermine what I think is going to be the thing that could bring this down. I think it’s more likely Trump gets indicted than impeached, criminally. Flynn's conversations weren't about Israel. They were about removing the Magnitsky Act sanctions on Putin and his cronies. Scahill's willfully blind. It has been obvious there was a conspiracy for ages - from when Trump invited Putin to hack Hillary's e-mails in July 2016. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #427,637
2/21/19 2:52:43 PM
2/21/19 2:52:43 PM
|
Yes, the 100% is a big ask, but ...
Suppose that when the Harvey Weinstein story broke Bill Cosby made a statement condemning him. Some people would say, "Well that's true, but you're not the one to point that out." Others would say Cosby didn't actually care about Weinstein but was just trying to deflect attention from himself. Others would ask why we're still giving Cosby a platform.
These groups, who fundamentally agree with each other about the facts, would end up arguing with each other about tactics.
Two days later there would be more meta-discussion in the news about who gets to talk than there is about the actual issue. Which is good for both Cosby and Weinstein.
If this pattern is repeated every time someone questions motives - if the pundit class consistently focuses more on tactics and who gets a platform than on the underlying issues - eventually you have to wonder if that isn't the goal.
As they say towards the end of the podcast, when you (as a U.S. government official) criticize what Russia is doing in Crimea and someone compares it to what we're doing in Yemen, you've got a few ways to respond. You can call it "whataboutism" and refuse to engage on the issue. Or you can maybe stop supporting what we're doing in Yemen.
|
Post #427,640
2/21/19 3:58:09 PM
2/21/19 3:58:09 PM
|
Ok.
But if we take the position that nobody can be criticized in international affairs because everyone has unclean hands, then nothing will ever get better. And we'll end up with situations where Putin can murder his enemies in foreign countries with impunity. Oh wait... :-/
I don't accept that.
It's a cynical way of shutting down criticism and weakening (fallible) human institutions that are the only way we have to make things better.
The USA and Putin's Russia are not equivalent.
IMHO.
I was exposed to this type of argument in college when (~ 1979) I went to a few Spartacus Youth League meetings to argue with them about Iran and Afghanistan. "The Russians were right to invade because the former government and tribes there make their women wear veils and tuberculosis is rampant!!1 And the USA has unclean hands too, look at what the CIA was doing in Iran!!" I didn't find it persuasive then, and I don't now.
YMMV.
Of course, we need to do better. But Putin has his own agency.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #427,649
2/21/19 7:42:36 PM
2/21/19 7:42:36 PM
|
It's not "No because ... " It's "Yes and ... "
Russia should stop what they're doing in Crimea *and* we should stop what we're doing/supporting in Yemen.
And FWIW how is what we're doing in Yemen better than what Putin is doing in Crimea? I'm not comparing all of "The USA and Putin's Russia" just these two policies.
|
Post #427,650
2/21/19 9:32:51 PM
2/21/19 9:32:51 PM
|
I'm not defending what we're doing in Yemen.
AFAIK, its indefensible.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #427,658
2/22/19 9:34:13 AM
2/22/19 9:34:13 AM
|
yeah? whatabout Obama telling Putin to wait till after the election huh? :-)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
