There is actually a very popular meme in Brazil for what you just did, where a character appears out of nowhere to ask, "What about Lula?" — meaning that if one can find any act (or accusation) of malice from Lula or his party, anything bad the other side does is justifiable and Lula (or his supporters) can't complain.
It's called "whataboutism" in general. The word is used to easily wave away criticism of the other side of the argument without actually addressing it.
Complaining about whataboutism can be its own kind of whataboutism. I wish people I politically sympathize with would stop giving their enemies good points.
I think there is a difference of a country governing who can say what in that country vs. a foreign company. I don't care if you call it censorship or whatever, it's foreign companies meddling in political affairs.
US companies can meddle as much as they want in US affairs, I don't care. But not in the country I'm in.
By "the government", you mean "courts"?. I understand you may be confused as Trump imagines the law bends to his will, and you never heard of separation of powers.
Can you show us which court order Meta is following to ban Lula's page? Please.
You don't understand, it's different. Back then, it was the bad guys being censored, so it was a good thing. Now it's the good guys being censored, so it's a bad thing.
When the left censors their political opponents, they're "protecting democracy". When the right does the same, they're "threatening democracy". Those are the rules.
Indeed it seems that they only have problems with censorship when their team gets censored but they secretly enjoy their opposition getting censored. As it is the Lula admin mandated that X suppress the speech of about 600 opposition candidates.
There is actually a very popular meme in Brazil for what you just did, where a character appears out of nowhere to ask, "What about Lula?" — meaning that if one can find any act (or accusation) of malice from Lula or his party, anything bad the other side does is justifiable and Lula (or his supporters) can't complain.
https://tenor.com/pt-BR/view/e-o-pt-e-o-lula-pt-lula-gif-174...
It's called "whataboutism" in general. The word is used to easily wave away criticism of the other side of the argument without actually addressing it.
“But her emails!” / “but her laugh” / “but he wore a tan suit” for instance. All used to excuse high crimes and thefts of billions of dollars.
Complaining about whataboutism can be its own kind of whataboutism. I wish people I politically sympathize with would stop giving their enemies good points.
1 reply →
I think there is a difference of a country governing who can say what in that country vs. a foreign company. I don't care if you call it censorship or whatever, it's foreign companies meddling in political affairs.
US companies can meddle as much as they want in US affairs, I don't care. But not in the country I'm in.
By "the government", you mean "courts"?. I understand you may be confused as Trump imagines the law bends to his will, and you never heard of separation of powers.
Can you show us which court order Meta is following to ban Lula's page? Please.
You don't understand, it's different. Back then, it was the bad guys being censored, so it was a good thing. Now it's the good guys being censored, so it's a bad thing.
When the left censors their political opponents, they're "protecting democracy". When the right does the same, they're "threatening democracy". Those are the rules.
Indeed it seems that they only have problems with censorship when their team gets censored but they secretly enjoy their opposition getting censored. As it is the Lula admin mandated that X suppress the speech of about 600 opposition candidates.
https://derechadiario.com.ar/us/argentina/x-revelo-source-co...
[flagged]
4 replies →
Pointing out an issue with one action doesn't mean approval of other actions. You don't have to invent an conspiracy.
4 replies →