Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
@ciaranmak you will notice this toot was about Ukraine, not Palestine.
We can have a separate conversation about Palestine. I believe just as Ukraine, Palestine has a right to exist, and Palestinians have a right to safety and security. But that's a separate conversation. Nice red herring though!
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
@gubi @ciaranmak first of all, this is a classic example of whataboutism and it deserves to be called out as such:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Secondly, I didn't say "ukrainian case can be solved by providing billions of warfare to the invaded country", you are putting words in my mouth.
Third, I made my position on Palestine pretty clear. Much clearer, I might add, than you have on that topic, or on the topic of Ukraine.
This would be a good time for you to make your position clear on both. 👀
Carlo Gubitosa :nonviolenza:
@rysiek @ciaranmak the only reason to separate the issues is to apply a double standard that gives a different values to the lives of palestinian people and ukrainian people. International and humanitarian law is the same everywhere. Universal Human rights are the same for everyone. If you think that ukrainian case can be solved by providing billions of warfare to the invaded country this should apply also to the palestinian case if you want to keep coherence to your reasoning.
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
@gubi @ciaranmak great, then we agree on the basic level! 🎉
Now, what if the invading party is refusing to engage in good faith in both 1. and in 2.?
Carlo Gubitosa :nonviolenza:
@rysiek @ciaranmak as a pacifist believing in UN charter as a peaceful mean to settle conflicts between countries my position is the same of international and humanitarian law:
Terrorism is always a crime
Invading a country is always a crime
Bombing civilians is always a war crime
The solution:
1) Stop killing (ceasefire)
2) Find a political way to settle the armed conflict
Juho Mäntysalo
As mastodon allows multiple threads, I'm going to go beside the point:
The historical whataboutism has a poor reputation due to us still being close to 1950s and affected by partisan rhetoric of the time, and we side with the USA.
That being said, USA's rhetoric hinged on the fact that USSR politbyro was technically responsible for everything, while USA had plausible deniability by working through companies and client states.
Which whataboutism tried to point out.
Juho Mäntysalo
For example Tsechslovakia 1948 was a horror of Soviet control, but Guatemala 1952 was just companies being companies.
Even though it was the same thing: premier of a superpower authorizing a coup in a client state.
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
@iju oh, no question about that, but to me whataboutism is more about how a given given topic is used in a conversation.
I think there's a crucial difference between:
- just throwing the other complex topic into the conversation;
…and:
- stating one's position *and then* mentioning the other thing.
"What about Palestine" is a completely different thing than "I agree/disagree with you on Ukraine, but wonder what you think on Palestine, then?"
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
@iju if you state your own position, you become vulnerable to arguments and criticism in a debate.
If you don't, you're just coasting, exploiting the vulnerability of the other person who *did* state their position. You're free to flip-flop, "just ask questions", and use any other kinds of eristics.
So, when I see something like "what about Palestine", which lacks a clear statement about the main topic, that to me looks like an attempt to misdirect, not have a conversation.
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
@iju or, to use your example:
"What about Guatemala in 1952" in the context of a conversation about Soviet atrocities in Czechoslovakia 1948 – I would call that whataboutism.
"I agree that Soviets are guilty of atrocities in Czechoslovakia 1948, but the stuff capitalist companies did in Guatemala in 1952 is easily comparable" in the same conversation – I would not call whataboutism.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.