07-11-2023, 12:30 PM
(07-11-2023, 12:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes. “Whattaboutism”. At least 4 people recognized it. Not you.
Nope, you're still not getting it. Unsurprising.
Quote:I.e., they recognized that holding the U.S. gov. accountable for its own actions was a "domestic" issue for Americans responsible for their own government, not for the Chinese government. Imagine if someone were arrested for stealing a car in Iowa, and Murray defended him in court by saying "People steal cars and China too! Why is no one talking about that? My client demands to know why he is being singled out when etc. etc. etc."
And still not getting it. We're talking public perception, not a court of law. Inappropriate analogies don't help address the topic.
Quote:Some people want school books to accurately present US history.
Others say “not unless you ‘protest’ China too!”
Then it will be fair. No “singling out.”
Who is saying that?
Quote:When it actually comes to global history and politics, it's not clear who is “only” taking western nations to task. I’ve read 4 books on China over the last two years. I believe all “took China to task” for human rights violations with "criticisms of substance" except for one about the deep economy. How would I know about summary executions of Tibet protesters if no one were “taking China to task”?
It's not clear? Have you been in a coma the last three years?
Quote:Are there historians who go easy on Japanese wartime atrocities, or reporters who went easy on Al qaeda and saddam and ghaddafi, or who now go easy on North Korea? Looks like Murray's history is to history what push polling is to polling. It's for people who aren't very interested in history until it is linked to grievance. Even they prefer Youtube to scholarly books. That makes them easy marks for "push history."
Not sure why you're stuck on modern day examples when his point was regarding actions taken hundreds of years ago. We get it, you're not interested in understanding why so many people hear "reparations" and "west is bad" polemics and increasingly roll their eyes and stop listening. Like most ideologues you're incapable of understanding why people think differently than you, because what you think is "correct". This response from you screams, I have taken in nothing of what is said and will now provide you with a boilerplate "progressive" response.
Also, and typically, you rush to dismiss the positions of your opponents as lacking in scholarly value, an old and apparently favored tactic of yours. We know that anyone who agrees with Dill is learned and anyone who doesn't is a charlatan who "prefers YouTube to scholarly books", no need to constantly reinforce it. Your responses positively drip with condescension. It's not a good look.
