Yes, it matters. Goods and wrongs don't cancel out, but they both matter.
It's funny you mention whataboutism, because that's what I was about to mention too.
This really goes to my main point: it's important to be able to levy criticism and to NOT give anyone a free pass, but many of the comments in here seem to be implicitly (and arguably, erroneously) splitting world actors into "good" and "evil". Hence the "us vs them" mentality and the mounting nationalism.
Unfortunately there are things that are beyond permissible in this world - the holocaust was supposed to be never again.
Trying to say "oh, but the west has problems too" when there aren't any comparable attempts at large-scale genocide ongoing is crazy. Not because the west doesn't have problems. Or because the west is somehow angelic. But because it's like comparing a nuke to a house fire. And some things really are evil in a whole different way.
> Trying to say "oh, but the west has problems too" when there aren't any comparable attempts at large-scale genocide ongoing is crazy.
Again, this is not what I was trying to say, and if it came across that way then I was misunderstood or I did not express myself correctly.
I can see how what I wrote could have been interpreted that way, but I would really encourage you to apply the "charitable interpretation" principle.
I would also note that the topic of genocide is different from the original topic of conversation. While my comment was of a more general scope than the wiki drama, I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that I'm trying to change the topic or deflect attention by way of whataboutism.
---
Edit: reconsidering this thread, I think I would like to clarify that what my comment was trying to get at was that a lot of the criticism being levied against China suffered from the "genetic fallacy" [1]: regardless of whether the criticism was right or wrong, some of it didn't address the matter at hand (the wiki drama) and instead resorted to criticizing the world actor based on other baggage. It's not that the conclusion of the critiques is wrong per se, it's more that it might be right only by accident. I hope this helps clarify.
I think everything is very intertwined when it comes to China.
It's true that on some level blocking Wikimedia from a global organization isn't directly about genocide - it's about Wikimedia not being a centralized entity kissing the ring the way the China wants it to. But on another level that is really about the fact that articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide exist, and that they're guided by an aspiration to encyclopedic documentation and not Xi Jinping Thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought). Because China would like Xi Jinping Thought exported globally.
I would agree with that, but I maintain that the criticisms in the comments section were of varying degrees of quality. IMO, the best and most useful ones are those that are carefully scoped and precisely defined. Some comments have these attributes, but not all.
It's funny you mention whataboutism, because that's what I was about to mention too.
This really goes to my main point: it's important to be able to levy criticism and to NOT give anyone a free pass, but many of the comments in here seem to be implicitly (and arguably, erroneously) splitting world actors into "good" and "evil". Hence the "us vs them" mentality and the mounting nationalism.