-8
"Authoritarian" the infamous CIA-spread term đ
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
-8 points (31.8% liked)
Political Memes
2221 readers
701 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
When you mention things like these, the pro Chinese people always argue with whataboutism. "WELL, whatabout IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? Checkmate!"
lol. Can't handle two things being true at the same time. Typical liberal.
I can accept two things are true. It's just I can accept when something is irrelevant to the argument. It's almost as if you think one wrong cancels out the other. You'll figure it out one day.
Faking it until making it is definitely a valid strategy. Just saying you can accept two things are true is a good first step. One day you'll figure out how to apply it.
What are you even talking about lol It must be so easy to live life when you're too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
I never made the statement that one wrong thing cancels another.
You clearly state that two things can be true.
I'm stating that both the western accusation of authoritarianism being illegitimate and China being authoritarian can both be true.
Why do you need a hypocrite definition's blessing to say it as it is.
As for being stupid, I see you speak from experience. I can only imagine your world is.
It's because mentioning what the West is doing or has done in a thread about Chinese aggression is only there to derail. If you're a smart person, and can accept both things are wrong, why not just stick to the original point?
I'm not a politician, I did not personally invade other countries with the goal of expanding Western interests, I just want both sides to be kind, and can't stand it when people think they're making a great argument when they say "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID" when we're talking about something else entirely.
And jesus chirst please stop with your "no-you" level shit comebacks.
I see the point in this and agree.
You and I both vote, and to that extent applicable, are responsible.
Everyone wants that. You're not special here.
The whole point of legal precedent is that point. The argument of âBUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DIDâ is the basis of the entire Common Law legal tradition, judicial precedent, and a check to ensure Rule of Law is followed. If you don't like it, then stop pretending to be in favour of a rules-based international world order.
The "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID" is the argument used to combat systemic biases and prejudices in legal and justice systems. The same in domestic as in foreign legal systems.
The alternative is to say, and hope you spell it out since you in practice believe it,"Me good, you bad".
If you don't want shitty low effort comebacks, then don't say shitty low level insults. Simple as. I am not afraid to be a you get back what you throw type of commenter.
If you don't want to engage that's fine. But if you engage in bad faith than don't be surprised you get responses in bad faith in return.
Two things can be true at the same time. In the case you brought up, imperialism done by both China and the West are illegitimate. I am stating the obvious fact that accusations done by Western politicians and ideologues are self-serving. If accusations are self-serving and have no weight, they become illegitimate. Rightful accusations of authoritarianism against Western countries are automatically labelled as illegitimate by such people because the target is the west.
It appears to be an appeal to hypocrisy. But to clarify what I am saying, the accusations of authoritarianism and totalitarianism by such people is always self serving hence their accusation is illegitimate. There are instances of clear authoritarianism such as when @HikingVet@lemmy.ca brought up the Uyghers. It does not mean that the accusation is still illegitimate.
To make an analogy, a broken clock is right twice a day. So two times in the day the time shown on the clock is correct. For those two times of the day, the objective time of day matches what the clock is saying. The statement made by the broken clock does not give you the objective time, rather by accident the objective time matches with the clock. For the entire day excluding those two times when the clock is correct, we can both agree that the statement made by the clock is illegitimate because the clock is wrong. For the brief moment when they agree, I would still argue that the reading from the clock is illegitimate because it is a broken clock. To know that they agree, we have to have another source to tell us not the broken clock by itself.
The accusation about hypocrisy is more the fact that if nothing happens to the West for doing what we do, then why should China? It's simple rule of law stuff really.
And my example from my original comment is about how China treats billionaires not about it's imperialism. If China was aligned to Western interests (i.e. protect billionaires) but are authoritarian to other peoples (e.g. Uyghers), the west would not declare China as authoritarian.
Good example is Morocco that is authoritarian, especially against Western Shara, but no such accusation leveled against them in diplomatic foreign affairs.
Or in the words of Yes Minister:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hsNfNM0SvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EvBS_sbPbc