Faking it until making it is definitely a valid strategy. Just saying you can accept two things are true is a good first step. One day you’ll figure out how to apply it.
It’s because mentioning what the West is doing or has done in a thread about Chinese aggression is only there to derail. If you’re a smart person, and can accept both things are wrong, why not just stick to the original point?
I’m not a politician, I did not personally invade other countries with the goal of expanding Western interests, I just want both sides to be kind, and can’t stand it when people think they’re making a great argument when they say “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID” when we’re talking about something else entirely.
And jesus chirst please stop with your “no-you” level shit comebacks.
It’s because mentioning what the West is doing or has done in a thread about Chinese aggression is only there to derail. If you’re a smart person, and can accept both things are wrong, why not just stick to the original point?
I see the point in this and agree.
I’m not a politician, I did not personally invade other countries with the goal of expanding Western interests
You and I both vote, and to that extent applicable, are responsible.
I just want both sides to be kind
Everyone wants that. You’re not special here.
can’t stand it when people think they’re making a great argument when they say “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID” when we’re talking about something else entirely.
The whole point of legal precedent is that point. The argument of “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID” is the basis of the entire Common Law legal tradition, judicial precedent, and a check to ensure Rule of Law is followed. If you don’t like it, then stop pretending to be in favour of a rules-based international world order.
The “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID” is the argument used to combat systemic biases and prejudices in legal and justice systems. The same in domestic as in foreign legal systems.
The alternative is to say, and hope you spell it out since you in practice believe it,“Me good, you bad”.
And jesus chirst please stop with your “no-you” level shit comebacks.
If you don’t want shitty low effort comebacks, then don’t say shitty low level insults. Simple as. I am not afraid to be a you get back what you throw type of commenter.
If you don’t want to engage that’s fine. But if you engage in bad faith than don’t be surprised you get responses in bad faith in return.
Faking it until making it is definitely a valid strategy. Just saying you can accept two things are true is a good first step. One day you’ll figure out how to apply it.
What are you even talking about lol It must be so easy to live life when you’re too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
I never made the statement that one wrong thing cancels another.
You clearly state that two things can be true.
I’m stating that both the western accusation of authoritarianism being illegitimate and China being authoritarian can both be true.
Why do you need a hypocrite definition’s blessing to say it as it is.
As for being stupid, I see you speak from experience. I can only imagine your world is.
It’s because mentioning what the West is doing or has done in a thread about Chinese aggression is only there to derail. If you’re a smart person, and can accept both things are wrong, why not just stick to the original point?
I’m not a politician, I did not personally invade other countries with the goal of expanding Western interests, I just want both sides to be kind, and can’t stand it when people think they’re making a great argument when they say “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID” when we’re talking about something else entirely.
And jesus chirst please stop with your “no-you” level shit comebacks.
I see the point in this and agree.
You and I both vote, and to that extent applicable, are responsible.
Everyone wants that. You’re not special here.
The whole point of legal precedent is that point. The argument of “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID” is the basis of the entire Common Law legal tradition, judicial precedent, and a check to ensure Rule of Law is followed. If you don’t like it, then stop pretending to be in favour of a rules-based international world order.
The “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU DID” is the argument used to combat systemic biases and prejudices in legal and justice systems. The same in domestic as in foreign legal systems.
The alternative is to say, and hope you spell it out since you in practice believe it,“Me good, you bad”.
If you don’t want shitty low effort comebacks, then don’t say shitty low level insults. Simple as. I am not afraid to be a you get back what you throw type of commenter.
If you don’t want to engage that’s fine. But if you engage in bad faith than don’t be surprised you get responses in bad faith in return.