It doesn’t really matter what is or isn’t proven. China will continue to label it fake news either way. Everyone does that, anyway. Whataboutism, too. Very neat. Very handy. You can prove whatever you want. Debunk whatever you want. And China would just deflect. It’s kind of like dealing with a baby — you cannot scold a baby, the baby would just cry. All you can do to prevent the baby from doing what you do not want him to do? Distract him.
China can always bring up the Iraq war. Vietnam. Racism in America. Bring up anything really. Don’t admit to any wrongdoing. Ever. Maybe a small, tiny little concession here and there, but nothing major. The West is just jealous and trying to “keep the mighty Chinese dragon down”. They’re insecure! They cannot handle the great and glorious success of red China.
Yes maybe we Chinese are not nice to our Muslim inhabitants, but… Iraq! Weapons of mass destruction lie, haha. You’re worse, America. Much worse. Fuck you. Maybe in some ways we’re bad. Maybe. BIG maybe. But you’re worse. Lol. Argument won. Yankee western imperialist successfully destroyed.
And hey, didn’t the British bring opium to China? Didn’t the West humiliate and weaken China for a long time? Even if you could prove China unleashed some virus on purpose to weaken the West, or was at best quite careless in containing it, you’ll see Chinese hypernationalists, marinated in seven decades of indoctrination, make actual excuses for it. Justifying it. Like how they justify everything the CCP does anyway.
They’ll make some video of people in Wuhan singing some catchy song. Like how they hired some supposed Uyghurs to praise the Chinese state in obviously scripted messages before… and, move on. Fully expecting the world to move on soon after.
Because it doesn’t matter who you’re dating, married to or friends with. Take Thomas Jefferson, for instance. He kept slaves. Human beings that were his property. He also took a liking to one of them, a young girl called Sally Hemings. When Jefferson’s wife died, she became his de-facto partner, concubine, and the mother of several of his children. Children who, like their mother, were legally the propery of their father.
Now was Jefferson always evil and vile to his common-law wife, who was also his slave? Not necessarily. In fact she enjoyed certain privileges. Some of the children he had by her, he treated well. He saw it to they enjoyed a better education than the other slaves at his plantation.
So you can be racist as hell, literally keep slaves, and still have a bit of a ‘soft spot’ for one or a few of them. Of course to us, today, the very concept of owning your own family, literally owning them as property, is sick. Even in his day, some were weirded out by it. Jefferson didn’t claim the kids as his own. But he did set one of them free, later in life.
By today’s standards, Thomas Jefferson was a disgusting, horrible racist. Not to mention the fact that Sally Hemings was just fourteen when he began bedding her. For his era, though, it should be said that he was relatively benign, maybe even considerate, as far as slave owners go. Still hella racist though.
People are complex. Racists are people, so they, too, are complex. Derek Chauvin may been awfully sweet to his now ex-wife. And decidedly not sweet to the defenseless, unarmed and tied up man he murdered in broad daylight.
Republican talking points were accidentally sent to Democrats.
Talking points are often sent out by think tanks who are funded by wealthy donors.
Retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) have asked for “unanimous consent” to bring the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act to a vote on the Senate floor. The push comes after Jeff Sessions resigned from his post as attorney general, prompting speculation about the future of the Mueller investigation.
Steve Hilton said the proposed legislation is “ridiculous,” as Trump has never given any indication that he plans to shut down the Russia probe.
He said there should be an “equivalent investigation” of the Hillary Clinton campaign and all the “deep state malarkey” that happened prior to the 2016 election.
Melissa Francis said the problem is that “nothing ever comes of these investigations.”
“The idea that they would come together and draft legislation to protect an investigation? I mean, if that isn’t the swampiest thing you’ve ever heard in the world,” Francis said. “To waste time and money and effort on that, it makes me want to send them all home for a nap.”
PRESIDENT TRUMP tweets it repeatedly: Yes, there was collusion with Russia — except the real colluders were Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. The president was back at it again Thursday, quoting a conservative cable host’s assertion that “Hillary Clinton & the Democrats colluded with the Russians to fix the 2016 election.” This inflammatory argument may play well with the president’s supporters and others inclined to believe the worst about Ms. Clinton. But the claim that Ms. Clinton’s 2016 opposition- research activities were on the same moral or legal plane with the Trump team’s direct interactions with Russians represents a preposterous effort to confuse and distract.
.. Here is what the Trump team did: Senior campaign officials, including then-chairman Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, met in June 2016 with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-connected lawyer. They were told the lawyer could give them “very high level and sensitive information” on Ms. Clinton, as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Here is what the Clinton campaign did: It employed a U.S. law firm that hired a U.S. research outfit that brought in Christopher Steele, a British ex-spy, to gather information on Mr. Trump from his network of sources. That network included Russians.
.. Mr. Trump’s whataboutism obscures the fundamental difference between engaging in opposition research that includes contacting foreign sources and lapping up information peddled by a foreign government. Mr. Steele, a well-regarded ex-spy, was acting as a compensated researcher with a specialty in Russia, not as a Kremlin cutout. He worked his network to deliver information to his client.
.. the fact that the damaging information was not forthcoming, at least at that meeting, does not excuse the sordid fact of the meeting in the first instance.
..One of Mr. Trump’s go-to defenses is insisting that others have done the things he is accused of, only worse. No matter how many times he tweets about Ms. Clinton’s supposed collusion, that doesn’t make it true, nor does it diminish legitimate concerns about his own campaign’s behavior.
.. Third, this was classic “whataboutism,” a favorite Putin tactic in which he compares, for instance, the annexation of Crimea with something unrelated, like Kosovar independence. In Helsinki, however, Putin simply invented the comparable crime.
.. The Guardian deemed whataboutism, as used in Russia, “practically a national ideology”
.. The New Yorkerdescribed the technique as “a strategy of false moral equivalences”
.. the technique is used to avoid directly refuting or disproving the opponent’s initial argument. The tactic is an attempt at moral relativism, and a form of false moral equivalence
.. The Economist recommended two methods of properly countering whataboutism: to “use points made by Russian leaders themselves” so that they cannot be applied to the West, and for Western nations to engage in more self-criticism of their own media and governmen
.. By accusing critics of hypocrisy, the Soviet Union hoped to deflect attention away from the original criticism itself
.. Although the use of whataboutism was not restricted to any particular race or belief system, according to The Economist, Russians often overused the tactic. The Russian government’s use of whataboutism grew under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.
.. “Putin’s near-default response to criticism of how he runs Russia is whataboutism”
.. The philosopher Merold Westphal said that only people who know themselves to be guilty of something “can find comfort in finding others to be just as bad or worse.” Whataboutery, as practiced by both parties in The Troubles in Northern Ireland to highlight what the other side had done to them, was “one of the commonest forms of evasion of personal moral responsibility,”
.. it can also be used to discredit oneself while one refuses to critique an ally. During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when The New York Times asked candidate Donald Trump about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan‘s treatment of journalists, teachers, and dissidents, Trump replied with a criticism of U.S. history on civil liberties.[102
.. “The core problem is that this rhetorical device precludes discussion of issues (ex: civil rights) by one country (ex: the United States) if that state lacks a perfect record.”
.. Russia Today was “an institution that is dedicated solely to the task of whataboutism”, and concluded that whataboutism was a “sacred Russian tactic”
.. Garry Kasparov discussed the Soviet tactic in his book Winter Is Coming, calling it a form of “Soviet propaganda” and a way for Russian bureaucrats to “respond to criticism of Soviet massacres, forced deportations, and gulags”. Mark Adomanis commented for The Moscow Times in 2015 that “Whataboutism was employed by the Communist Party with such frequency and shamelessness that a sort of pseudo mythology grew up around it.” Adomanis observed, “Any student of Soviet history will recognize parts of the whataboutist canon.”