I'm familiar with the connotations of the term "Orient," but that was kind of the point of using it in this instance -- I think having Maoist struggle sessions be the first thing that comes to mind is the same kind of thinking about how something is exotic and foreign when it isn't. Maybe you would have gotten my point better if I put the term in scare quotes. I think the attacks on me as "not a decent member of society" are just kind of personal attacks that aren't very germane to the discussion.
> Try to imagine the following world: the Chinese Communist Party accuses the U.S. of crimes against humanity in the Middle East, and Washington does not turn around and say something like, “What are you talking about! You have one million people in re-education camps in the Xinjiang Province!” In this imaginary world, I guess, US officials would respect the fact that China is only talking about the Middle East right now, and out of politeness refuse to talk about anything else. To do so would be crude whataboutism.
> Can you imagine that happening? Of course not. English-language commentators would contest the right of Xi Jinping to set the terms of the debate, and they’d use the opportunity to draw attention to human rights violations in China, which would be a good thing. Because, I think, it’s good when we expose and condemn any crimes against humanity, no matter the motivations for the revelation.
> Let’s try an arena much smaller than the geopolitical. What if a man comes home, and says to his wife:
> “Susan, you didn’t take out the trash!” he says.
> “Brad, you have never taken out the trash once in your life,” she replies.
> Would it be fair for him to turn, smugly clutching a copy of The Economist, and say, “Susan, this is not about me. I can’t believe you are doing whataboutism”?
The problem with whataboutism is when it's used by an abusive party to try to get the other abusive party to jointly agree that each party's abuse is okay.
Other than that, yes, it's good to expose abuses (as long as over-exposure isn't being used to swamp out public awareness or caring of other abuses).
I think the whole charge of "whataboutism" is pretty bankrupt for reasons I think this article pretty accurately sums up: https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whatab...
> Try to imagine the following world: the Chinese Communist Party accuses the U.S. of crimes against humanity in the Middle East, and Washington does not turn around and say something like, “What are you talking about! You have one million people in re-education camps in the Xinjiang Province!” In this imaginary world, I guess, US officials would respect the fact that China is only talking about the Middle East right now, and out of politeness refuse to talk about anything else. To do so would be crude whataboutism.
> Can you imagine that happening? Of course not. English-language commentators would contest the right of Xi Jinping to set the terms of the debate, and they’d use the opportunity to draw attention to human rights violations in China, which would be a good thing. Because, I think, it’s good when we expose and condemn any crimes against humanity, no matter the motivations for the revelation.
> Let’s try an arena much smaller than the geopolitical. What if a man comes home, and says to his wife:
> “Susan, you didn’t take out the trash!” he says.
> “Brad, you have never taken out the trash once in your life,” she replies.
> Would it be fair for him to turn, smugly clutching a copy of The Economist, and say, “Susan, this is not about me. I can’t believe you are doing whataboutism”?