It is hard for us to make arguments for moral positions given our own current cesspool of an administration.
1 Like
He has an unfortunate point. I’ve made the exaggeration here before: the GOP views urban centers as concentration camps for oh so many reasons amd doesnt want any leakage or escape to exist.
1 Like
It is hard to argue with this:
“Trump and his colleagues,” the article read, “deserve the ‘racist disgrace’ more than others.”
That sounds like a “yes” to me.
1 Like
Hah, it’s only that Trump has made us forget that we lost such ethical territory under the Bush 43 regime and its decision to wage aggressive war against two sovereign nations, trying to outdo what his daddy did in Panama. Trump is merely a phase in this downward spiral.
4 Likes
Chinese diplomats love to travel abroad and use Twitter without a VPN. These tweets aren’t for international consumption but to be used by propaganda departments domestically. It’s doubtful that the posters fully understand what they are posting about. I suspect there was some sort of bureaucratic forwarding snafu which explains why a party member in Pakistan commented on matters in the USA.
When Trump was elected, a friend told me" how bad can he be, we’ll.just elect someone else if he doesn’t get things right"…I rolled my eyes then and am close to suicidal today…
I don’t know if he’s racist or a disgrace, but he’s definitely ignorant. Clearly he hasn’t been in DC in 10 years if he thinks that white people don’t go to Southwest… There might be more white people in SW now than there are non-white people.
1 Like
To China? No.
Finally, someone posted that!
Not to dispute just how bad things are in the US, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the Chinese twitter campaign is textbook whataboutism. Classically used by the Soviet Union in the 1950s.
Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery ) is a red herring version of the classic tu quoque logical fallacy - sometimes implementing the balance fallacy as well - which is employed as a propaganda technique. It is used as a diversionary tactic to shift the focus off of an issue and avoid having to directly address it. This technique works by twisting criticism back onto the critic and in doing so revealing the original critic’s hypocrisy. The usual syntax is “What about…?” followed by an issue on the opponents side which is vaguely , if at all, related to the original issue. An old favorite of the Soviet Union,[2] the strategy was originally used in the form of “And at your place, they hang black people.”[3]
[…]
Examples
- As mentioned, one of the most common examples of this fallacy was Soviet responses to criticism by pointing out the United States’ own failings, such as the mob lynching of blacks. “And you are lynching Negroes” (or “And you are hanging blacks”, as the term Negro fell into disrepute) was a common joke in the Soviet Union at Murica’s expense,[note 1] used when Americans accused the Soviets of violating human rights. While often just an informal joke, sometimes this argument was used seriously. It’s a tu quoque argument and a type of whataboutism.[5] Instead of attempting to justify the behavior of the Soviet Union, this argument is an easy way to deflect blame onto America by implying they’re hypocrites.[note 2]
1 Like