“But today I changed my mind, completely,” Ai said. “The West (is) not even (in a) position to accuse China. (They must) just check on their record (of) what they did on international human rights, (their) freedom of speech record.”
It always did. The US causes a greater net harm on the world than all your favorite “authoritarian regimes” combined.
AI? That’s a downvote. /s
That’s an altogether new type of dissident, Shirley.
Not that he’s not right technically, but if only the saints can judge anyone, then I guess everything’s allowed.
What holds him back to return to China then?
The human rights violations that the West keeps pointing out.
I appreciate the call for introspection, but I think human rights violations should be criticized regardless, and even more widely than currently. I don’t care who does it - it’s everyone’s duty.
Special attention should be focused on severe and extensive violations.
Example: should we not criticize Iran for killing protesters? Should we not criticize Russia for attempting to conquer Ukraine and bombing civilians? Should we not criticize Israel for bombing civilians and starving Gaza’s population? Those are severe and extensive violations. If nobody makes a fuss, they become normality.
As for China… violations in China are extensive. Millions of people are affected by detainment, coercive relocation or forced labour programs. National identities of minority peoples are being erased, people are relocated by force or imprisoned if they oppose. People’s languages and customs are being banned from public life and education, religious minorities are discriminated against. Some violations are also severe (death penalty is meted out regularly for those who oppose too much).
I note: an average European country can criticize that without looking hypocritical.
Yesterday I criticized my own country, today I will criticize another country, and I expect politicians to meet the same standard.
“But whattabout…”
One can legitimately criticize another while still having vices of their own. This does not diminish the criticism, only lack of truth would do that.
I have plenty of personal issues I need to work on… that doesn’t mean I have no right to criticize others for their issues. Especially if they refuse to even acknowledge them, much less work to overcome them.
It affects value judgments such as “We’re better than you because…” but those are pointless and petty statements, and don’t deserve critical thought anyways.
As if China isn’t one of Israel’s biggest trading partners.
Also Russians, and Iran too
It’s almost like they are everyone’s biggest trading partner.
yeah you can question morals, you just get called a hypocrite which is fine
Lmfao, whataboutism from the Wumao? No wayyyyy
Ai Weiwei hasn’t been known as a wumao. He didn’t appear out of nowhere, he has some history.
It’s still whataboutism.
True. I wonder what changed from his viewpoint.
Probably got re-educated.
I don’t think you read the article.
The West (is) not even (in a) position to accuse China. (They must) just check on their record (of) what they did on international human rights, (their) freedom of speech record.
Whataboutism.
No:
Whataboutism is when you defend bad behavior by trying to justify it based on other bad behavior. The whole point of the article is that Weiwei is pointing out failures in Europe in al the context of criticizing the behavior of the Chinese government. It’s literally the opposite of whataboutism.
The article explains pretty clearly that Weiwei is a critic of China’s human rights abuses, and has expanded their criticism to recognize the growing human rights abuses among China’s western critics, which has undermined global human rights and the ability of these nations to credibly pressure China to improve.
Again, I will say: respectfully, I suspect you did not click the link to the article before opining on it.
“Whataboutism” or “whataboutery” (as in, “but what about X?”) refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation. It is an informal fallacy that the accused party uses to avoid accountability—whether attempting to distract by shifting the conversation’s focus away from their behaviour or attempting to justify themselves by pointing to the similar behaviour (which may be true or false, but irrelevant) of their opponent or another party who is not the current subject of discussion.[1]
You’re not even responding to anything I said. To repeat: you, me, and Weiwei are all on the same side. We’re all critics of the Chinese Communist Party’s human rights record. No one is engaging in whataboutery in this article.
You know what would be an absolute Chad move, here? I don’t think this is likely, but if anyone is reading this, take note:
You can just say, ‘That’s a good point: I didn’t read far enough to get important context and misunderstood. Thanks for the correction.’
That’s an option. I’ve absolutely misunderstood an article I didn’t fully read and had someone politely correct me. It’s okay and healthy to just own it.
Of course I’m not. When you acknowledge the comment is whataboutism, based on the definition of the word, then maybe we can have a conversation. 🤷♂️
He’s not wrong, China probably has better freedom of speech now than the UK
How did you arrive on that conclusion? I read several UK-based news sites and they criticize the government on a daily basis.
Someone told another person to “speak clearly” because they’re deaf and got arrested for hate speech
Someone was discussing the problems of immigration in public and was arrested for the same
Thousands have been arrested for opposing genocide in Gaza under terrorism laws
They don’t lol, they censor the hell out of their Internet, the netizens have to use proxies and anti detect browser just to bypass the firewalls.
Uhhh……….Chinese people cannot communicate beyond the wall, lol
UK people can’t communicate with each other
Yes they can, you liar
I feel like this comment section is primarily made up of dril and Ken M. tweets.
There are so many comments like the one you’re replying to that just make no sense except as absurdist humor.
Sadly, this is kinda true now.
Legit.
I genuinely believe that the most important steps any American who is concerned about human rights abuses in foreign countries can make is to remedy the flagrant human rights abuses they see at home.
Freedom and rights don’t really come from governments: they come from what people demand and the restrictions they impose on their leaders. So if you want safety for the Uygers, for instance, you don’t go reprimand Xi Jinping: you treat Muslims in your own country well, and you treat visiting Chinese nationals well, and popularize principles of a free society internationally through actions.
Weiwei is right: we need less talk, more action.
We need both talk and action. They are not mutually exclusive.
America maybe, but the West is more than just the States
