politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If it's a red line for everyone, and it means you shouldn't vote for Biden as a result, then you should also be minimizing your contributions/purchases with the US economy and all other countries currently engaged in genocide. Either take an absolutist stance on all of them, or make your rationalizations for all of them. Don't pick and choose.
You mean like how the Biden administration picks and chooses with its stances on Russia and Israel? Per capita, Israel is actually committing the much worse atrocity, but the same people moralizing about Russia's actions are telling people to shut up about Israel. Saying you can't criticize one thing because other bad things are happening is textbook whataboutism, but it's obvious that whataboutism is a term used by Americans solely as a shield for all their bad actions (i.e. don't call us out on our hypocrisy because we flooded the news with our talking points first). I criticize China for its horrific treatment of Uighurs and I criticize Israel for its atrocities.
As for consumerism, you don't have to worry about that from me. I'm pretty sure you buy more shit from China than I do, since I barely buy anything at all.
Then we have no disagreement. Especially since you don't take the position that buying/voting is a full throated endorsement of the genocides.
My issue with the person was their absolutist stance that suggested you shouldn't vote for Biden or do anything which could support a genocide supporting regime. You can and should criticize Biden and China while voting or buying their goods. But what you do to one, you should do to the other. It's hypocritical to refuse to vote for Biden for the Palestinian genocide while buying goods from China that support the Uighur genocide. And vice versa -- refusing to buy Chinese but being fine with voting for Biden.
Does that make sense? Basically, you shouldn't pick and choose. You criticize it all or you excuse it all. If you refuse to support one, you refuse to support them all. If you tell people it isn't real and is bullshit propaganda, you say that for all of them.
People have their own red lines and while they may seem conflicting or hypocritical, they are their own. Bringing up one separate thing in response to another is whataboutism, plain and simple. That was my point with my initial response. All that bringing up Uighurs did was divert the discussion towards other things, which is the point of whataboutism.
Sure, my point is just that they aren't following their stated red line. It isn't whataboutism to challenge someone on a seeming exception to their belief.
They made an absolutist statement about genocide. I asked about a specific case to see if their belief actually was absolutist. I did not divert the topic by asking if that goes for all genocides. They diverted it by saying it doesn't.