Why does one of these 2 situations feel different ?

Chase / Eng ghosted!
Jan 10 15 Comments

Situation One:
United States ambassador to the United Nations gives a speech criticizing Soviet Union for its human right abuses. Soviets respond by saying 'And you lynch blacks'

Situation Two:
Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations gives a speech criticizing the United States for its human right abuses. United States responds by saying 'And you put dissidents in Gulags'

We are taught that Situation One is a classic example of 'Whataboutism', but in situation two, Americans would cheer on the United States' response, yet isn't it also Whataboutsim?

Logically I feel these 2 situations are the same, yet I agree with the US responses in situation 2, but cannot logically explain why.

Anyone wants to help me solve this puzzle?


Want to comment? LOG IN or SIGN UP
TOP 15 Comments
  • Apple / Eng NotAtApple
    Case 1: blacks were lynched for their looks (something they cant control). But whites were able to raise dissent against the government and hence we can say democracy was still applicable to majority (whites) of the population

    Case 2: dissidents were sent to gulags for their actions (something they can control). So democracy was not at all applicable for anyone.
    Jan 10 1
    • There was plenty of ethnically-based forced migration that resulted in millions of deaths, including in gulags.
      Jan 10
  • Google / Eng Hcyk00
    Because capitalism propaganda implanted idea into you, just like any other country happily do.
    Jan 10 0
  • They're equivalent.
    Jan 10 0
  • New me2you.
    Difference is that commie elites put white russians in gulas while American elites shielded whites from abuse slave class had to endure, so they were able to deal with it.

    Similar to how Apple employees feel all morally superior supposedly standing up for the common man and LGBTwhateves while conveniently ignoring factory slaves in China.
    Jan 10 0
  • Bank of America blacKnight
    Situation One:

    A guy meet a girl, they fell in love and after marriage guy left girl for another woman.. society says he is a jerk...

    Situation two:

    A girl meet a guy, girl shows she fell in love with him, guy took it seriously.. girl used him for money and everything else.. she took his wealth.. found another guy and left him on roads.. society says it’s women empowerment.. “You go gurlz...”..

    Logically I feel both are same, yet society reacts differently.. why ?

    Example : https://youtu.be/GccCWo_eZdw
    Jan 10 3
    • Very situational, and people won't typically have the information to draw those conclusions.
      Jan 10
    • Bank of America blacKnight
      @@SuperAdmin: let’s say if I agree to your point then why people don’t react when there is a male abuse but help immediately to women ? If they don’t know they should keep quiet...
      Jan 10
    • I'm not going to accept your premises.
      Jan 10
  • Tableau hellish
    Both are true and of course horrible, both are in the far distant past.
    Jan 10 0
  • Salesforce Nohana4
    Not sure what you talking about
    Jan 10 0
  • VMware BobbleHat
    So you are saying the USSR government is equivalent to an angry mob of racist idiots. Hm, maybe you are right.
    Jan 11 1
    • Facebook


      dev, human,
      I don't know if racism was high on the agenda of USSR, they were focused on political dissidents
      Jan 14
  • Amazon btsfan
    Jan 10 0
  • New me2you.
    Russians used to broadcast on TV video clips of US blacks getting water cannoned during civil rights protests to say "see, at least russia is not that evil"

    BUT Russian peasants noticed that blacks were being pulled out of automobiles before being abused and thought "even blacks can afford new cars in America. What a great country"

    At the end of the day, msterial benefits enable ignoring the hypocricy
    Jan 10 0

Join verified employees in our anonymous social network! Download the app!