> Europe use to say that about the United States (Pre WWII).

False. Europe and the US industrialized at more or less the same time. While the US was copying Britain, Britain, Germany and Italy were copying each other, too. Subtle but important difference.

Also, replace "Pre WWII" with the 1800s. Japan was like 100+ years after the West. In the 1980's Japan's modern economy was booming, but industrialization took place long before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Unfortunate choice of words.

As someone who's conducted both government-sponsored and private-sector-sponsored university research, "open" and "free" are not so black and white in top research universities.

US universities are not charities for the world. They are meant to ensure US dominance through corporate and government research partnerships. The openness and freeness is there to a degree, and has to do with the sharing of certain research results (even with China).

That freedom is not absolute - when Microsoft or Qualcomm fund research, there are IP ownership rights, and rules as to what can be published and when government by contracts and subject to the University's rules; the researcher has obligations to the sponsor. When the research groups simultaneously agree to these rules while being in China's pocket, the system is compromised.

In other words, if I'm AstraZeneca, I give you X dollars and we agree in part to (1) freely and openly publish *certain* results and (2) retain exclusive rights, or first dibs on Y and Z, it's a win-win, because you give me cheap labor/research facilities, progress is made, and I'm willing to share some of these results. So, AstraZeneca and this university in question are somewhat "open" about their work (not 100%, I said it wasn't absolute). But if AstraZeneca found out that you're in a compromised position (due to an aggressive 3rd party) and might be subject to violate the terms of our agreement (government or otherwise), they likely wouldn't have agreed to the terms in the first place or engaged to work with that university. In that sense, the Chinese government as the 3rd party is not special.

Replace China with another entity - say, AstraZeneca found out that the researcher they are sponsoring is in Pfizer's pocket. There's legal recourse if any IP is misappropriated (i.e., lawsuits in the US). Same does not apply with China, hence the ensuing panic over the last few years.

You are confusing two things:

(1) Person A: I can do X because B did X (B didn't really do X, A just makes it seem like they did, draws a false equivalence).

A is exercising Whataboutism. B calling them out on it is fine. That is how the term came about in the first place.

(2) Person A: I can do X because B did X (B actually did X).

If B is dismissive of A and screams whataboutism, then I agree with you. If B says yes, I did it, it's wrong, and what you're doing is wrong, that's morally fine. Both parties lose a point - they don't cancel each other out (tu quoque). But the term - the very definition, or at least connotation, is in the context of (1) above. If you don't believe me you're welcome to read up on it (I recommend you do, since you thought it was a millenial made-up term). So, if you see someone using it in the context of (2), call them out on it.

Your example about Trump/Clinton is not an example of classic Whataboutism, because there is actual moral equivalence. Hope that clears things up.

"yes but in a debate, someone makes a point, you score it as a point. If I point out that you have a history of this too, then I also get another point, thereby making your point in the argument less significant."

Actually you don't get a point by pointing out that they have a history of it too - not if they openly admit that they are also wrong, and especially in the context of a debate (this is a purely academic point, as you say, in a debate). Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Actually, Whataboutism is not a madeup millenial term - it dates back to the Soviet Era, where the Soviets pointed out the hypocrisy of the west in the same way China does.

As pointed out by others, some (many) American actually do worry about their own skeletons, and they criticize others too. So long as you're consistent in your moral position, there's nothing wrong with that - no hypocrisy, either.

If you're waiting for a country and its people to be perfect before criticizing others, you'll be waiting for eternity, and by your logic, no one should ever criticize any other country, Chinese criticism of the west included. Not realistic.

"a responsible position would have been to follow suit from the get-go and seek clarification later. No country locks itself down just for the hell of it."

I agree 100%.

For the record, as an American abroad I'm embarrassed at our response - my earlier post was not meant to provide an excuse. The WHO screwed up, but regardless the US response was not great. Regarding the CDC, I do wonder how much of it was the CDC/NIH shortcomings, versus the administration. It would seem that Fauci et. al., generally have it together.

Part of the stark contrast in response from the West in general vs Asian countries is that the SARS pandemic has left serious scars in various countries and territories in Asia. In Hong Kong, it was the people who were paranoid and were urging the local government to shut borders long before the government got their act together and did it. The people were so proactive in wearing masks, distancing, etc., that the conversation to make it mandatory was never even had (except to tell expats they should, as many of them don't wear masks). A lot of that was because they've gone through this once before in a way no other Western country/territory has...

Same (in Asia). Unfortunately the WHO at the time didn't come out guns blazing and recommend masks - and not due to forecasted shortages for healthcare workers - March 30th:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/0...

"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program"

I don't read the comment about plural usage to be literal (sarcasm, or just funny) but yes, you have a point.

If you've been on slashdot enough you'll start to notice "regulars", and especially in relation to certain topics (e.g., China).

If you follow any topic on China these days, pretty much on any forum on the internet, you often see a what are known as Wu-Mao:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Chinese, just as much as anyone else, are of course allowed to defend themselves. If you follow the whole 50-cent thing, you find that posters often regurgitate the same rhetoric over and over again, such as:

(1) China invented high-speed rail (false)
(2) China is technologically ahead of the US because of 5G (the US doesn't even compete in terms of end-to-end 5G solutions; like saying you're a better athlete to a basketball player because you're a better swimmer)
(3) Sino-British agreement is "just a historical document"
(4) HK'ers would "rather be British dogs than Chinese"
(5) .... (I could go on)

The reference to American hypocrisy is reminiscent of the type of argument WuMao plaster everywhere.

You might see these phrases, and others, verbatim - a tell-tale (though not definitive) sign of the 50-cent party. Hence the other post about collecting 50 cents - it's straight from the CCP playbook, though we don't actually know whether the poster is exercising independent thought or not (maybe he/she is).

I think the poster's comment about being Chinese is to be taken in this context. Having an academic discourse would be very welcomed, but you seldom get that because the internet is flooded with the same rhetoric, almost verbatim.

What about all of those Europeans who are also upset about China stealing? Are they hypocrites too?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/z...

What about Canada and Huawei's theft of Nortel's IP?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

As for America, you're talking about the 1800s, or as you would say in China - "Ancient Times". It's funny, isn't it, when China wants to ignore the past because it is not favorable to them they dismissively say "Oh that his a historical record" (i.e., not important, as they stated with the Sino-British Agreement regarding HK). But here's a history lesson for you, and maybe a lesson in law and society too:

- America stole from Great Britain in the late 1800s. - Britain had stollen spinning technology from Italy - Italy retaliated - Germany stole the same tech from Britain.

Since you've managed to bypass the Great Firewall, I'm sure you can Google and read for yourself. The point is, everyone was stealing from each other. If China had stolen then, I doubt anyone would single out China, and you would be right to call these other countries hypocrites. Believe it or not, intellectual property laws have developed a lot since the 1800s, and IP is far more valued now than it was 150+ years ago. Whole economies are based on IP development now, which was less so the case then.

When you steal from me today, you're hurting me, whereas I didn't actually hurt you.

It is not everyone else's fault that China spent the 1600s, 1700s and early 1800s (*before* the "100 years of humiliation") isolating itself from the rest of the world while the west developed their countries advanced the state of science, technology and industrialization through exchange and trade:

https://www.independent.co.uk/...

China has blocked many Western firm from operating within it's borders so it could develop its own technology in-house - that's exactly how Alibaba, Tencent, and others came to be - blatant rip-offs of western business ideas. Almost 1-1 mapping to large American corporations. Yet your companies have unfettered access to global markets... who's being a hypocrite again?

You can bring politics into this - and blame the administration, and that's fine; lots of missteps there. You can also get your head out of the sand and take a look at the world and ask yourself, is X a good thing for my country, the world - regardless of whatever bullshit reason my administration has claimed? Read this: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia... (TikTok censored anti-Beijing content in Indonesia per request from Bytedance Beijing). If you own a large company it is compulsory to hire a card-carrying commie to monitor your operations. In the US, when Facebook, Twitter etc sensors anything there's criticism, congressional hearing and major media stink about it. So, no, it's not the same thing.