But the question at hand is not "Which government is more evil?" (Even though I think the answer is clear even though U.S. government is horrific.) The question was "Is Google reentering China likely to do net good for the world?" China evil is directly relevant to that, U.S. evil only peripherally.
Beyond that, which-tribe-is-better arguments powerfully attract flamewars. They're a fantastic way to deflect the original question. It's a classic pattern, and so we have a word for it, whataboutism.
>But the question at hand is not "Which government is more evil?" (Even though I think the answer is clear even though U.S. government is horrific.) The question was "Is Google reentering China likely to do net good for the world?" China evil is directly relevant to that, U.S. evil only peripherally.
Well, when put in front of a question, it's good to question the question itself.
People, media, governments, etc frame questions all day in a constrained way, either because it serves some interests, or because they can't see the bigger picture, or because they're used to thinking with blinders on.
I'd say that a question like "Is Google reentering China likely to do net good for the world?" much be put into question itself.
Why would it be good or bad? What is China? How is Google's own country better? What Google already does elsewhere? Is that good? Is China the same as "Chinese government"? and so on...
Beyond that, which-tribe-is-better arguments powerfully attract flamewars. They're a fantastic way to deflect the original question. It's a classic pattern, and so we have a word for it, whataboutism.