So tired of seeing this retort. To people who use it, such as yourself, the fact that only the sinophobic articles are upvoted means that the only possible avenue of discussion is to bash on China.
Consider the opposite - the fact that these things are so heavily upvoted means you either get an echo chamber where you can’t talk about anything else because it’s “whataboutism” or you get a full discussion including how the actions compare to other countries.
In other words, you can either have a shallow mud slinging fest or you can have a deep conversation.
I don't think discussing the scope or frequency of a(n alleged) problem is "whataboutism". From your link:
> It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
The comment you replied to doesn't attempt to change the subject (the subject is identical), and doesn't accuse other countries of worse, or more egregious conduct, but (again) identical conduct and the accusation levied isn't an "unconnected offense" but is (again) identical.
Drawing comparisons can definitely be used as a misleading rhetorical device but it's not always the case that drawing comparisons is a misleading rhetorical device. I think comparisons, contrasting examples, and even tangents drive a lot of interesting conversation on HN.
