Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 February 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 6

Whataboutism

I have a couple questions regarding whataboutism.

1. Why do so many people use it so damn often? That include individuals whose opinions and views I tend to value and by using it, I mean simply bringing up actions of the opposing side of a discussion in response to the latter's arguments and nothing else. Don't they realize that this is a type of ad hominem fallacy?
2. Is whataboutism a type of contextualization? For example, in a discussion regarding Amos Yee, someone comments that Singapore practices censorship and someone else responds that other countries have their own limits on free speech such as Thailand's lese majeste laws or how some countries criminalize hate speeches and that it would be disingenuous to talk about Singapore without mentioning other countries.

StellarHalo (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's kind of like The Mote and the Beam. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 05:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The short explanation is cognitive dissonance -- people generally dislike changing their views or admitting their flaws, so pointing out other people's problems can distract from having to face or admit to their own. AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The popularity as a defensive debating trick may be explained by how effective it is. If the party originally expressing their disapproval ignore it, they may be seen to acknowledge the validity of the counterattack (qui tacet consentire videtur). If they do react to the what-about parry, the immediate attack has been successfully diverted. Instead of being a debating trick, there may be some validity when used to expose hypocrisy, as in the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, or the inappropriacy of narrowly focusing on a small group of culprits while giving others a free pass.  --Lambiam 11:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If people are cynical (trusting of negative information, but doubtful of positive information), then it’s difficult to counter negative information by arguing it’s untrue or actually a positive. However, it’s very easy to counter negative information by leveling it with equal and opposite negative information. When someone uses whataboutism, they have an expectation that negative information will be more readily accepted than positive information. —Amble (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A peaceful Muslim equivalent of Jesus?

Is there anyone who was a Muslim equivalent of Jesus in the sense of preaching a peaceful religious message as opposed to launching wars of conquest in order to spread their faith like Muhammad and his successors over the next century did? Futurist110 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Or like Emperor Constantine did, for the same reason, to impose Christianity? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 05:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Except Constantine did not actually personally establish Christianity. Muhammad was his own Constantine, so to speak! Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Constantine did not "impose" Christianity in the sense of making anyone convert (he himself did not convert until the very end of his life); rather he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman government (a decision which was later reversed by Julian the Apostate, then re-reversed). Not sure that words like "violent" etc. help add any insight, but the fact remains that Muhammad was a ruler, followed by the Caliphs, while Jesus was not a ruler, and Christians mostly did not have governing power until over 300 years after the time of Jesus... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

One may suspect (and I for one do) that most rulers who started a war using faith as a justification merely used this as a pretext. In the contemporary view of most Islamic scholars, jihad "of the sword" is only permitted in defense of the faith when it is under attack. I am convinced that the vast majority of Muslim preachers preach Islam as a religion of peace and are opposed to war, other than perhaps in defense against an aggressor. If you don't hear about them, it is because this is not a newsworthy item, just as there are no headlines about school coaches not abusing students.  --Lambiam 10:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Is jihad against Muhammad cartoons considered in self-defense? Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I take it that you've seen Jesus in Islam? Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Lambiam -- unfortunately your sentiments do not correspond to the historical reality that Muhammad conquered most of Arabia, and within about 15 years after his death his immediate successors conquered over half the Byzantine Empire and completely destroyed the Sassanid Persian Empire. The border between the Arab Caliphate and the unconquered remainder of the Byzantine Empire (mainly located in what is today southeastern Turkey) was basically a perpetual war zone for the next 300 years and more... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, early on in its history, Islam spread EXTREMELY widely as a result of an EXTREMELY vast Muslim conquering spree--especially in the first century after Muhammad's death! Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No worse than what the Roman Catholic Church did over the course of centuries. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 13:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Except that Jesus himself did not actually personally preach in favor of conquest, did he? Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Whataboutism? Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Baseball_bugs -- Not sure what that means. The Papacy was involved in various struggles with European kings (Emperor Henry IV in the snow at Canossa etc etc), and petty wars in Central Italy, but it did not command armies which conquered tens of thousands of square miles of land. AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Forgotten about the Crusades already? Sure, the Pope wasn't in direct command, but was directly responsible. Fgf10 (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That's nice -- the Crusades were a semi-feeble riposte to the "Rashidun" (early Arab Muslim Caliphate) conquest of over half the Byzantine empire, both in amount of territory conquered and in how long the conquests lasted -- and the supreme religious leader of Catholicism did not give direct military orders (unlike the situation with the Caliphate). AnonMoos (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"Sentiments"? What have these to do with the issue? Do you (AnonMoos) have evidence that these 7th-century Islamic conquests and subsequent border conflicts were driven by the religious fervour of their instigators, and not by their hunger of worldly power?  --Lambiam 22:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You have evidence they weren't? DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I merely said that one may suspect this. If I had evidence beyond mere suspicion, I should have used a less tentative modality. But since even this suspicion was ascribed to "high sentiments", as if it was evidently not of this world, it appears to me that I am not the party on whom the burden of proof is incumbent.  --Lambiam 15:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Lambiam -- You appear to me to have high-minded sentiments that most ordinary Muslims today are not particularly eager to conquer anything today (unless perhaps Israel), and I actually agree with you in that. However, in the early origins of Islam (Muhammad himself, after he attained power, the four "Rashidun" Caliphs, etc), Muslims as a community were aggressive and expansionist. Traditionally in Islam, the early leaders of the Islamic community were revered as models to be followed by other believers. If you're accusing them of "hunger of worldly power", then some Muslims would think you were insulting their religion... AnonMoos (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If Israel reaches a peaceful settlement with the Palestinian people, the Arabic anger towards Israel will instantly dissipate; it is not fueled by a desire to conquer, but by indignation at what is seen as extremely unjust. I try to avoid giving identifying information about myself so that I can feel free to edit as I think fit, without having to consider potential consequences for organizations I represent, or my loved ones, or myself. Thus far, attempts to out me (of which there have been a few, off-Wiki) have been unsuccessful. I am less concerned that my edits may hurt anyone's feelings.  --Lambiam 15:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Even without Arab/Muslim anger towards Israel, there would still be problems such as extremist Muslims killing people–especially in the Western world–over things such as Muhammad cartoons. Just look at Samuel Paty's fate. Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Even without extremist Muslims killing people there will still be problems, such as governments downplaying the seriousness of a pandemic.  --Lambiam 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed on the "instantly dissipate" bit (I find that implausible in the extreme -- ocean liners do not instantly turn around on a dime). Before the 1980s, most Arabs were very open and aboveboard about wanting Israel to be destroyed -- partly because of injustices, but even without injustices, they still would want it to be destroyed because the mere fact of its existence was an affront to Arab and/or Muslim sovereignty. Arab attitudes about Israel have never been solely or even mainly determined by Western-style human-rights concerns, and any attempt to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous. Your last two sentences have little relationship to anything I said. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You wrote that some Muslims would think I was insulting their religion. As I think you know, people have been killed because some Muslim thought they were insulting their religion. This can only happen if they can find them. If I was not anonymous, I'd be more careful with how I formulate things. How can you not see the relationship?  --Lambiam 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have very little idea how what you think you're talking about has any valid relationship to anything I said. If you wish to explore this topic further, I would wish that you do so separately, and not try to attach it as an appendage to my previous comments. AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

TBF, I think that a large part of the reason that Muslims have reconciled themselves to Israel's existence by now is simply because Israel has a HUGE amount of military force, including nuclear weapons. Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that you are conflating Arabs and Muslims here. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs.  --Lambiam 01:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that a direct Muhammad quote from the Koran? Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's from Matthew 10:34 in the Christian New Testament. AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please Baseball Bugs, either answer the question or keep silent. Trolling shouldn't be allowed here and you often do it. Ericdec85 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-Christian myself, I have to say that I agree with the general thrust of Bugs' argument. Armies certainly did conquer tens of thousands of square miles of land on behalf of the Roman Catholic faith. Apart from the better-known Middle-eastern crusades, consider the activities of the Teutonic Knights in the pagan Baltic lands. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.121 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

But did Jesus himself ever actually personally preach in favor of conquest? Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

He said, "My kingdom is not of this earth." Apparently his ardent followers disagreed. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 04:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's one thing for religious followers to ignore the teachings of their religious leader; it's quite another thing for religious followers to follow the teachings of their religious leader. When Muslims aimed to spread their religion by the sword, were they ignoring or following Muhammad's teachings? ISIS very likely thought that it was indeed following Muhammad's teachings, but what about other Muslim conquerors throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's also not forget the Spanish Inquisition and its relatives. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 11:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What does that have to do with conquests??? AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The original question treads on delicate matters. Calling it or responses "trolling" might not be helpful. Pacifism in Islam, Peace in Islamic philosophy and Sufism might be of interest.John Z (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Barefoot in East Asia

When did the practice of not wearing shoes or wearing indoor slippers become a practice in China? It certainly wasn’t a practice in Imperial China. And the same goes for Japan, was this a traditional practice or a later adoption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.14.47 (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

cf. Foot binding.
Sleigh (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about China, but in a traditional Japanese house, the floor is covered with tatami rice-straw matting, which wouldn't stand up to much wear from outdoor shoes. Originally just for sleeping on, these became general floor-covering in houses of all classes in the 17th century. The traditional indoor footwear is tabi, socks with a separate big toe so that you can wear zōri flip-flop-type sandals. Alansplodge (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"Originally, Chinese people sat on the floor inside homes and businesses (as the Japanese still often do today), so removing shoes was necessary to keep the floor clean. In the Zhou dynasty (1046-256 BCE), it was also required for commoners to remove their shoes, and even their socks, before meeting their lord... However, after the fall of the Han dynasty in 220 CE, China saw influxes of invaders from the northern and western frontier regions, who brought with them a flow of foreign furniture. Higher tables and chairs enabled people to stop sitting on the floor, and they no longer removed their shoes unless they were going to bed.

It’s not clear when and why the Chinese started removing their shoes again, but Wee [a staff editor] dates the custom to sometime in the 20th century. Even today, shoe-removal is not practiced in all regions of China: Rural homes, for instance, may have dirt or concrete floors on the ground level, making shoes necessary unless one is going to the living quarters upstairs". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool this was informational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.14.47 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

OR: The practice isn't so much going barefoot in one's home, as it is replacing outdoor shoes with indoor ones (generally sandals) upon entering. I've always heard it justified on the basis of hygiene: keep the outdoor dirt outdoors. .DOR (HK) (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Taking one's shoes off at the door is also customary in Finland^[2] and Turkey.^[3] Not doing so as a visitor is rude. Wikipedia has an article on the tradition of removing shoes in the home and houses of worship around the world, but it does not clearly identify in which cultures taking a step inside with a shoe is a false step.  --Lambiam 14:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nowadays, countries hate monetary deflation like a vampire hate a cross. What they would think of another country deciding their will have monetary deflation/stagflation?

Nowadays, countries hate monetary deflation like a vampire hate a cross. They think they must print money to make sure money lose value and people use it instead of saving.

My question is, what they would think of another country deciding their will have monetary deflation/stagflation? What would be their reaction to that? 2804:7F2:599:7854:F8E8:BDD9:5471:4996 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

First, stagflation is not the same as deflation. Stagflation = high inflation + low growth. No country wants that and no country would deliberately adopt a stagflationary policy for itself. Countries do accept higher inflation as part of a policy to encourage economic growth. If a country opts for deflation or no inflation, the fear is that it may also have no growth, something like the Lost Decade (Japan). —-Amble (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

My bad, changed the question to remove stagflation, I assumed Monetary stagflation was when the state stoped printing money (or destroyed the same amount you printed, like destroying one 100 dollars note to print two notes of 50 dollars) and monetary deflation was when not only money is not being printed but government is actually destroying more money than what they print. Also my question, not if an country X would want to have monetary deflation, my question already said they hate it and I already know it, I am asking what they would think about other countries having monetary deflation (again this is about stopping to print money, not price of stuff). 2804:7F2:599:7854:F8E8:BDD9:5471:4996 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Other countries would be likely to think “the country adopting this policy will not experience strong economic growth.” —Amble (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I assumed they would try to stop it.2804:7F2:599:7854:995A:9B02:D606:83D0 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

How would they try to stop it? Why would they care to? Countries do sometimes accuse each of other of currency manipulation for trying to weaken their own currencies: see examples at Currency intervention. —Amble (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You asked what country X would think of another country, country Y, deciding they will have monetary deflation. Is "they" in this question country X or country Y?  --Lambiam 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

They is country Y. 2804:7F2:599:7854:995A:9B02:D606:83D0 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If countries hate deflation, then country Y hates deflation. If country Y nevertheless decides to have deflation, they choose to inflict suffering on themselves. Presumably, the people of country X will think they are strange.  --Lambiam 01:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If a country wanted to have monetary deflation, other countries would be really happy because one of their competitors would be sabotaging themselves. When money becomes a store of value rather than a medium of exchange, it stops moving. When money stops moving, your economy stops moving. Economies are not built on a big pile of money sitting in a Scrooge McDuck vault, they're built on people constantly using money to buy and sell things. If people stop buying and selling things, the economy stops. If your monetary system is intentionally designed to discourage people from buying or selling things, you're gonna have a bad time. (This is why Bitcoin will never become a popular medium of exchange vs. a speculative asset to store value.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not all economies “hate” deflation any more than all of them “hate” inflation. The key is to keep price changes within an acceptable range, say two percentage points either side of zero on an annual basis. One example of an economy voluntarily pursuing highly deflationary policies is Hong Kong, 1997-2004. In order to keep the exchange rate stable amid region-wide devaluations, the monetary authority raised interest rates sharply, driving prices down by 20% over seven years, and trimming real estate prices by some 70%. . I would also caution against using currency – $100 bills, for example – in these kinds of discussions, as very, very few economies actually manage their money supplies by way of something as primitive as a printing press. . DOR (HK) (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about paper money, because I am talking about monetary inflation, not price inflation. 2804:7F2:599:7854:995A:9B02:D606:83D0 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Where does your definition of monetary inflation come from? As far as I can tell, not even von Mises defined the word only in terms of paper money, or without accounting for changes is demand for money. (See his quote in monetary inflation). If we talk about something like M2 we’re looking at a lot of other things than dollar bills, but it’s still a measure of the money supply, not a measure of prices. —Amble (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In the same vein, you are aware I hope that when most people talk about the government or central bank "printing money" or something similar for some economic rationale, they generally aren't actually talking about the government actually physically printing money? For a very simplistic US focuses explanation see e.g. [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)