froghawk on 15/4/2019 at 05:40
Sounds like a whole lot of whataboutism to me.
Starker on 15/4/2019 at 05:48
It matters when we talk about who sets the tone for others to follow. I think that Western democracies, for all their faults, are better than autocratic forms of governing. It's relevant to why I think a world led by the US would be in a better place and why Russia's attempts to undermine the West and sow postmodern chaos where none of the institutions and ideals matter are a thing to be worried about instead of going, "So what?"
"But what about Israel? But what about US actions?" sounds more like whataboutism to me.
froghawk on 15/4/2019 at 05:56
Those issues are directly relevant to Assange's leaks - much more so than which country is 'setting the tone' on the global stage. The only reason to have that discussion at all is to engage in US apologism, which I have no patience for.
Starker on 15/4/2019 at 06:01
It explains why Russia's actions are not merely a harmless commonplace thing. I have not apologised for US. In contrary, I have acknowledged that they do bad things. Saying they are the lesser evil is not to excuse US actions, but to show why Russia's success in things like these matters.
Also, as long as we are doing the metadebate thing, I would like to point out that the idea that you should first put your house in perfect order before you're allowed to criticise others is (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) a fallacy. For example, someone who is an alcoholic might be uniquely equipped to criticise the alcoholism of others, because they are all the more familiar with the negative sides of it. Similarly, the fact that US (or some other country) engages in illicit things does in no way excuse Russia's actions or make them more valid.
Furthermore, I have no patience for Russian apologism either.
froghawk on 15/4/2019 at 06:04
If said person incessantly harped on others' alcoholism without addressing their own, then they're projecting and hypocritical. That's exactly what we're seeing here. It's one thing to point out an issue where you see it - it's another entirely to obsessively fixate on it to the exclusion of your own problems. My argument does not follow said fallacy because there was no point at which I claimed that Russia was innocent - condition 3 was not met. I was claiming irrelevance, not falsehood. But hey, this is the classic modern neoliberal vs. far left debate. It's not going to be settled here. I don't play 'lesser of all evil' games and I'm not about to start.
Starker on 15/4/2019 at 06:12
It's entirely in response to claims that Russia did nothing wrong, though. On the other hand, when the topic is the Russian interference in US elections, then "What about the US interference in Latin America?" only serves to diminish what Russia did, to make it seem more normal. It is not normal. Neither what the US has done in Latin America nor what Russia did in the US.
froghawk on 15/4/2019 at 06:18
No, my point is that the US created this situation. You want to talk about 'setting the tone'? We set the tone by making global intervention a regular occurrence. Most importantly, we interfered in Russian elections when we practically installed Yeltsin. There's nothing whatabouty in pointing out that link - we intervened in their elections much more heavily than they intervened in ours, and we did it first. We set that precedent, and we're supposed to be surprised when they do it back, albeit on a milder scale? We strongly helped cultivate the climate in Russia to allow for Putin's rise, as well, but you're right - all of that is just whataboutism. You got me. This is a direct cause and effect situation. Literally no one here claimed that Russia 'did nothing wrong' (yes, I said it was normal, but normal excuses nothing in my book and is not remotely equated with innocence), so ditch the strawman and try responding to the actual argument I've been making since the previous page.
(
www.independent.co.uk/news/us-agents-helped-yeltsin-break-coup-1436470.html)
Starker on 15/4/2019 at 06:33
You were the one who claimed that Russia just posted some fake things on the internet. You saying that I think Russia is going to run the world by doing it is the strawman.
Meanwhile, I've been trying to explain why Russia's attempts to undermine Western democracies and values are a bad thing and you call it whataboutism while having brought up "What about Israel's lobbying" and "What about US actions in Latin America?" previously.
Also, "We got what we deserved" does not mean that Russian interference should not be taken seriously. Neither does "We do it too" or "We did it first".
froghawk on 15/4/2019 at 06:37
Cool, let's just keep repeating ourselves, ignoring context, and completely talking past each other for the rest of eternity. It's lots of fun.
Starker on 15/4/2019 at 07:22
Sure, let me just say that as someone who was born in the Soviet Union and witnessed the tail end of it, it just baffles me how little regard people have for Western values and how granted people take their freedoms. Your country, the US, may not be the best in the world, but trust me, there are much, much worse alternatives. United States, from my perspective from the other side, very much is the lesser evil.
The ideals and actions of the US may not always match, but it is those ideals that have set the tone and example so far, not the actions. The idea of a free press for example. When someone uncovers corruption in Russia, it doesn't even make it in the news. In the US, there is at least some accountability for the rich and the powerful, as little as it is. Wikileaks are a huge deal and the press reported them widely. In Russia, when a similar site called the Lubyanskaya Pravda published documents, not only did nobody report on it, the site was taken down in three weeks. There are freedoms that the West simply takes for granted. Did you know there is a law in Russia against insulting the state or state officials or publishing anything state officials deem to to be factually inaccurate (such as corruption allegations) and that people have been put to jail for violating it? Meanwhile, you have comedians savaging presidents to their face and they will not be jailed or killed for it.
