suzuky Retweeted
表現の自由に限らんけどインターネットで議論が沸き起こるとwhatabotismとご飯論法の氾濫にしかならないのインターネットの知の限界っぽい。
— マキノ/現代日本猶研 (@ActioSurrealism) April 11, 2022
もしも、Whataboutism の指摘しただけ反駁したつもりになっているとしたらそれも誤謬。
Whataboutism' is a rhetorical device that involves accusing others of offenses as a way of deflecting attention from one's own deeds.
「お前だって」論法というのは、自分の行為から注意をそらそうとして相手の非行を指摘することである。
Whataboutism From Wikipedia
Lucas recommended two methods of properly countering whataboutism: to "use points made by Russian leaders themselves" so that they cannot be applied to the West, and for Western nations to engage in more self-criticism of their own media and government.[4]
ちゃんと自分たちの非行を認めることで相手に相手の非行をみとめさせることは可能。
自分たちの非行を認めたくないひとたちが、Whataboutismだああ！と批判して逃げるのである。
Is “Whataboutism” Always a Bad Thing?If one is annoyed by the Soviets using American lynchings to deflect criticism, the best way to end the tactic would be to stop American lynchings.
But if that’s what “whataboutism” means, how can Ayman Mohyeldin be guilty of “whataboutism” when he points out that “it’s hard for us to lecture a country about violating a country sovereignty when in 2003 we invaded Iraq under a false pretext” and condemns Putin’s war in Ukraine in the same breath?
Whataboutismは注意をそらして自分たちの非行をごまかすことに本質があるから、イラク戦争もプーチンの戦争も非難している人にWhataboutism だあああ！という非難はあたらないんだ、と。
Take this Twitter thread from journalist Jeremy Scahill. He starts by calling the Russian invasion a “bald-faced act of aggression, replete with war crimes” and notes that it’s “rightly being condemned as such by large numbers of people and nations across the globe.” He goes on to talk about remarkably similar war crimes committed by the United States and NATO in Serbia at the end of the ‘90s and goes on to conclude that there’s “no contradiction between standing with the people of Ukraine and against Russia’s heinous invasion and against the hypocrisy, war crimes and militarism of the U.S. and NATO.”The replies to Scahill’s thread are overflowing with accusations of “whataboutism.” If we stick with the official definition of whataboutism as tu quoque, then the claim that Scahill is guilty of “whataboutism” makes no sense. Scahill isn’t concluding that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine doesn’t deserve condemnation.
ロシアの侵攻の犯罪について非難し、次に過去のアメリカの犯罪の侵攻を非難したとしても、Whataboutismの誤謬を犯しているわけではない。ロシアの犯罪は非難に値しないなぞと言っていないからである、と。
the term “whataboutism” captures their sense that this is a bad thing to do. It’s the ultimate “thought-terminating cliché”
Whataboutismだああ！と指摘すればそれで議論は終わりだ、と思っているならそれは阿呆じゃないか？と。
And there are some pretty straightforward reasons for all the anti-war leftists who appropriately loathe Vladimir Putin to bring up the horrors perpetrated by the United States and NATO during discussions of the ones perpetrated by the Russian Federation.
First and most obviously, anti-war Americans don’t think the harms perpetrated by American imperialism get nearly enough attention.
I feel nothing toward Russia’s anti-war movement but love and solidarity. As an American, though, my primary duty is not to speak out against the crimes committed by other governments.
ロシアの戦争犯罪の話をしているときなぜ、アメリカの戦争犯罪の話を持ち出すかと言えば、アメリカの戦争犯罪について、ロシアについてのように十分注意がよせられなかったと思っているからだ、と。そして、ロシアについてはどうにもならないことが多いがアメリカについては自国のことだし、影響を与えることができるのでアメリカの話を持ち出しているのだ、と。
Let’s drop the pretense that the official definition of “whataboutism” captures what critics of “whataboutists” are actually objecting to. Something much simpler is going on here. Those crying “whataboutism” don’t like it when American crimes are brought up during discussions of Russian crimes because they don’t want people to be reminded of American crimes.
結局、Whataboutism だあああ！と叫んでいるやつらは自分たちの保護したい国や団体の犯罪について指摘されるのが嫌なだけなのだ、と。
At its best, I’d argue that “whataboutism” is actually a moral imperative. Think about the issue of what kind of sanctions should be imposed on Russia. It’s important to ask, “What about the invasion of Iraq—what sanctions should have been imposed in response to that?” If the EU had seized some yachts and frozen some assets belonging to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and their politically-connected oil CEO friends, I would have been all in favor of it, and I’m similarly in favor of targeted sanctions on Russian oligarchs. Would I have supported indiscriminate sanctions that imposed mass suffering on ordinary working-class Americans, though? Would you? If not, why do you support imposing them on ordinary Russians who have even less input on their country’s foreign policy than we do? These are important questions, because they test what our principles actually are, and whether we believe in applying them only to our enemies or are willing to abide by them ourselves.
わああ、これは重要な指摘だな。Whataboutismはむしろ倫理的な要請なんだ、と。例えば、ロシアの政治家や富裕層への制裁について考える時、ラムズフェルトやチェイニーとその仲間の富裕層はどうか、かれらにも制裁をすべきだった、と考えるかどうか？ 記事の筆者は、両者への制裁は妥当だと考える。 では、ロシアの庶民が苦しむような制裁はどうか？イラク戦争の時、アメリカの庶民が苦しむような制裁についてはどうか？ 一方が否なら、他方も否のはずで、同じような条件の○○はどうか？と考えることで、自分たちが適用している原理がいかなるもので、自分たちにも公平に適用できる原理かどうか吟味できるのである、と。
On the one hand, realizing that the United States might very well do what Russia is doing under parallel circumstances takes some of the wind out of the sails of the argument that the invasion of Ukraine shows that Russia is a uniquely dangerous country that needs to be opposed around the world by a stronger and more aggressive NATO
ロシアがやったようなことをアメリカもやったであろうとわかれば、ロシアだけ特別に危険な国だ、とカッカとしている頭を冷やすこともできる、と。
Waxing indignant about the misdeeds of other powers while refusing to look in the mirror is what Vladimir Putin does when he simultaneously condemns American imperialism and wages war to keep a less powerful neighbor in his country’s sphere of influence. Let’s be better than that.
プーチンは自分のやっていることを顧みず他人のことを非難して戦争にはしっているわけであるが、Whataboutismと指摘して、能事畢れりで自己の反省をしないならやっていることはプーチンと同じだ、と。
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿