Maybe because selectively caring about specific issues while ignoring others is a form of political bias. I know people love to shout whataboutism whenever someone points out legitimate hypocrisy rather than confront the hypocrisy.
Where’s the hypocrisy? You’re projecting that they don’t care about the other causes.
That’s your own fault not theirs.
Maybe they have some women on their team who are particularly moved by this event? Maybe they have some Iranian expats? Maybe they’re unaware of the extent of other issues? Maybe it doesn’t matter because again , saying one supports a specific cause doesn’t mean they don’t support others.
There is zero hypocrisy here. There are only logical fallacies from people reading too far into things.
> Maybe because selectively caring about specific issues while ignoring others is a form of political bias.
There's generally three options when it comes to politics; do nothing, do something, do everything.
The first does not help anyone, and the last; being impossible - is a path back to the first (via burn-out, apathy or simply inefficiency ("scope creep").
So the only real option is to do "something" - and champion a few causes.
Preventing some abuses can be worse than nothing. Imagine the following.
Your friend Adam hits Bob. You do nothing. Bob tries to hit back but you grab his arms so he can't. Adam hits Bob. You do nothing. Bob still can't hit back because you are preventing him.
Another possibility:
A Corp in which you are a stockholder is polluting the environment. You do nothing. B Inc pollutes the environment but not as much. You step in to stop them which causes B to lose out on a lot of profit. A Corp outcompetes B Inc. You become rich.
Do I think we are being overly harsh on Iran? No. Should we consider the possibility and try to avoid it? Yes. Should we be suspicious of other people that are biased in what they enforce? Yes.
I think it's clear these are really contrived examples built explicitly to prove an exception to the rule.
In the real world, doing something is typically better than doing nothing.
You are walking in the park and see a woman being dragged into a bush to be assaulted. Do you intervene? By doing so are you stopping all assaults against women? No, but invariably people would still say you've done more good by doing something than by doing nothing.
The protestors in Iran haven't hit Bob their government, you're not restraining an equally aggrieved party by backing them against their regime. They're if anything the long term victims of Bob's habitual violence and they're finally seeking to break free, not to hurt Bob, but to be free from being hurt themselves.
A child is starving to death in Sudan. Do you feed them or do nothing? Does feeding them feed all the children? Does feeding none of the children make the world a better place than feeding one? If you were that child, or their parents watching them die in their arms, would you hope people would step away from their completely detached hypotheticals and actually do something to save a life when they could?
When you listen to people who are pointing out that you are a hypocrite, you are platforming hateful abusers and possible Putin propagandists. Listening to negativity is platforming hate.
So now people that believe Saudi Arabia and other countries should be held accountable for human rights violations are Putin apologists? What does this have to do with Iran specifically?
