Ah yes. Whataboutism. Suppose a robber acts in defense of a person about to be robbed. That may or may not make them a hypocrite, but it certainly doesn't make them wrong.
Or would you say it would somehow be more right for the robber to stand back and allow the robbery "because they're in no position to point fingers"?
One might worry about the motivations behind a murderer who murders another murderer and what that might mean for the original victim.
If anything it would be more a 'tu quoque' fallacy than whataboutism, because the latter tries to shift the attention to an unrelated topic, whereas here it is occupying land both times.
It certainly weakens the criticism, because the robber in your example might do the right thing, but if they really opposed robbing, surely they wouldn't do it themselves? As you said, it makes them a hypocrite, and makes you question their motive for measuring two cases with a different yardstick.
Sure, but to my mind the question is: How does robber #2 pointing out that robber #1 is himself a robber excuse the actions of robber #2?
OOP smells like a pro-putin propaganda account. Someone else doing something bad doesn't make your own acts of murder any more justifiable, especially when you're murdering someone completely different than the wrongdoer.
It’s you that is whatabouting. We could (Read:should) have defended them without robbing their land.
Further to that; it doesn’t excuse the fact that we have never returned the land to them. Bit of a process appreciated, but it would have made the incredibly difficult and moronic brexit process a bit easier.
I love this logic.
If we follow it, then nobody should have stood up to Hitler, because it would mean allying with the racist US and imperial Britain.
LMFAO this is what happens when you get "education" under a western regime. The racist US and imperial Britain were completely and utterly irrelevant to defeating Hitler. In fact, what they actually accomplished was to ensure that the horrors of capitalism would continue to this day. With the US, it would have been USSR that liberated all of Europe from both the nazis and capitalist oppression.
Don't take my word for it though. Here's what a book produced by US military has to say on the subject.
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn't contribute to the war effort at all.
It's likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it's estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it's more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
Okay. Even if this is correct, then we have: If the UK and the US had not stood up to Hitler, we would have a Stalinist regime spreading across all, not half of the continent. Nice.
Also, a reminder: The Soviets first collaborated with Hitler, attacking Poland together in 1939. They intensified rather than stopped the colonial practices of the Russian Empire.
This. The Russians did all the work and the US and UK come and take the credit
Because when other countries "stood up" to Hitler it was for moral reasons 🤡
Depends how far you want to keep going back...English talking about Russia and Ukraine like they don't still occupy most of Wales
Don't forget the Falklands.
Never heard of them. Maybe you mean the Malvinas.
Quite right you are. So I did.
The Falklands are probably the only recent historical example of colonization that wasn't immoral, but England should probably give them to Argentina anyway because fuck England.
They talk shit on every country as if they live in a utopia which is genuinely hilarious
I want to know who thinks we live in a utopia.
These situations are not comparable in the slightest.
You're right, what the British have done to the Irish is immeasurably worse.
the french talking about russia and ukraine
It's a really complicated situation as far as my understanding goes (I'm British for context). I believe most British would support Irish unification, at least from the people I speak to. But still the majority (or close to) would vote to remain in the UK. Plus it'll be outrageously expensive a transition for Ireland. I don't know why this is and would like to know.
It's not an easy situation, and in my own personal opinion we should be uniting as friends, allies and equals.
As a UK person, I look at Japan as a nation very similar to ours, they've successfully united 4 islands (plus many small) much larger than the UK and I'd love to understand how it seems so easy. They had just as many conquering bastards, but everyone is happy being Japanese.
Also...I can't figure out how to edit on this app...this seems like anti UK bot posting. Which there is a lot of. Putin is really angry with us apparently.
If Northern Ireland decided to reunite with the rest of Ireland it would solve so many problems... good luck trying to convince the Northern Irish of that.
The other day I was thinking about tensions that exist in part because of British-drawn borders. Israel-Palestina, India-Pakistan. Can't believe I forgot NI.
As it happens you don't actually have to be a social chauvinist for the country in which you reside.
The ENGLISH are the occupiers. Scotland and Wales are also occupied.
