View all comments ➔
  • 1 year

    New York is the de facto capital city of a literal slave empire who kidnaps people to foreign death camps so I’m thrilled to see what they’re reporting about China

    • You know it’s possible for multiple evils to exist, right? And sometimes they are also adversaries. Yes, the U.S. is evil. Yes, China is evil. Yes, Russia is evil. So in and so forth.

      • Classic case of whataboutism, it was a common “technique” very often used by the far-right in the 2015 US presidential elections

        • Amnesigenic@lemmy.mlBanned from communityEnglish
          1 year

          This isn’t a counterargument, it’s a thought-terminating cliche

      • You know it’s possible for multiple evils to exist, right?

        What would you say about a newspaper that spread salacious rumors about a foreign country’s nuclear weapons program, months before the newspaper’s domestic government launched a full scale military invasion? What about a newspaper notorious for promoting narratives that have contributed to homophobia, racism, and moral panics aimed at religious minorities? Or a newspaper that had damning information about domestic leadership and deliberately covered it up until the end of an election cycle? A newspaper that regularly promoted the interests of its corporate sponsors ahead of the well-being of its readership? One that promoted misinformation in the middle of a pandemic? Or one that shamelessly promoted financial con-men in the middle of their most brazen acts of fraud?

        Is that evil?

        Yes, the U.S. is evil. Yes, China is evil.

        But we have to side with the US, because it is the lesser of two evils! So trust the NYT, uncritically. Again. In this new drum-beat towards war.

        • You don’t have to support any evil. You can choose to not support any of them. Why is it a dichotomy to you?

          • You don’t have to support any evil.

            That’s why I cancelled my subscription.

            Why is it a dichotomy to you?

            Because the article is arguing for further US sanctions on Chinese trade goods. If you’re telling your neighbors, at the point of a US gun, not to buy Chinese products then you’re 100% supporting one of these evil institutions.

            This becomes even more dire when you’re talking about blocking Chinese solar panels and wind turbines so that you can defend US coal plants and gas stations.

            • What? Not buying Chinese products is somehow evil? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Regardless of what the article is advocating for, it’s making a really crucial point about Uyghur slavery, which is fucking evil, and you’re choosing to ignore it

              • Not buying Chinese products is somehow evil?

                When you’ve boycotted the Uyghurs so you can buy all your goods from occupied Kashmir and the sweatshops of Indonesia and Bangledesh, you’re not buying ethically. You’re just buying into the propaganda.

                it’s making a really crucial point about Uyghur slavery

                Is it? Are we doing anything to raise wages, improve working conditions, or enforce ethical standards on imports at long last?

                Or is this just an effort to whip liberal support for Trump tariffs?

                • Don’t try to make this about ethical consumption. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Most Americans don’t even KNOW about the Uyghurs in China. Literally any exposure this horrible situation is doing something.

                  I think I’ve just come to the conclusion that there is no way you’re going to concede the point that the Chinese are committing atrocious human rights violations, are you?

                  • Don’t try to make this about ethical consumption.

                    What do you think the sanctions of the Uyghurs was intended to accomplish? This was the explicit intent of the policy.

                    there is no way you’re going to concede the point that the Chinese are committing atrocious human rights violations

                    When I’ve seen what the NYT refuses to call genocide, I’m force towards skepticism when they finally do.

          • Amnesigenic@lemmy.mlBanned from communityEnglish
            1 year

            You are actively choosing to support evil right here and now

            • It what ways? By literally opposing both the U.S. AND China and recognize both of their complicity in massive human rights violations? Why are you trying to whataboutism this?

              • 1 year

                Sometimes I wonder why .ml people are so american pilled, its like they can not think of English speaking person from outside the us, let alone that most us think the us and their odd ways are bad.

      • 1 year

        “It’s suspicious that well known sink-pisser Larry is accusing Bob of pissing in the sink” is not whataboutism.

        • 1 year

          No, that’s literally whataboutism. It’s saying the merit of their accusation is based on their history of doing that thing rather than evidence of who they’re accusing of doing it. Fairly typical ad hominem attack.

          • Amnesigenic@lemmy.mlBanned from communityEnglish
            1 year

            No, it’s not “whataboutism” because the source of the accusations is extremely relevant. The US and our allies lied about Iraq and Afghanistan to justify our invasions, and got all of the same western media outlets that are cosigning our accusations towards China did the same with those confirmed lies. We have a verifiable history of lying about other counteies to justify our foreign policy, and we have extremely obvious motive to lie about China right now. Pretending that’s not the case doesn’t help your credibility.

            • 1 year

              Right! You can cast doubt on their honesty by pointing out that they have lied before. That’s called evidence.

              However, saying they do the same thing as the other guy is not evidence of them lying. That’s whataboutism and ad hominem.

              • 1 year

                I’m known to do something actively, constantly, and on purpose. When I accuse another person of doing that thing, its a very good reason to cast doubt on my claims and motives. That is a perfectly valid argument.

              • “I like to find any reason to not listen or understand anyone who doesnt agree with me!”

        • If Bob is pissing in the sink, who the fuck cares if Larry The Sink Pisser is saying someone else is pissing in the sink too?

          “what about all the sink pissing Larry has done?” is literally whataboutism.

      • Amnesigenic@lemmy.mlBanned from communityEnglish
        1 year

        This isn’t a counterargument, it’s a thought-terminating cliche