OF THE
TIMES

When the late anti-Apartheid activist Nelson Mandela emerged from prison and became South Africa's first black president, he carefully steered the country away from the radicalism of the African National Congress's Marxist past and toward a policy which embraced moderation and responsibility in international affairs. Rather than precipitate conflict, he sought to mediate and resolve. South Africa gained widespread respect as a country embracing peace and looking toward the future rather than catalyzing the radical causes which have sown conflict around the continent and wider world.Alas, Mandela was unable to make his changes permanent. After his five-year presidential term ended in 1999, and especially after his 2013 death, the leaders who followed Mandela-Thabo Mbeki, and especially Jacob Zuma and now Cyril Ramaphosa - have spent South Africa's moral capital shilling for increasingly radical regimes, terrorist groups, and causes.
When O'Reilly countered that "Putin is a killer," Trump responded, "There are a lot of killers. You got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"
This particular brand of changing the subject is called "whataboutism" - a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet Union and, later, Russia. And its use in Russia helps illustrate how it could be such a useful tool now, in America. As Russian political experts told NPR, it's an attractive tactic for populists in particular, allowing them to be vague but appear straight-talking at the same time.
The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject and pointing out one of Party A's faults - "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)
It's not exactly a complicated tactic - any grade-schooler can master the "yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there" defense. But it came to be associated with the USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and afterward, as Russia.

Comment: Salicido's gripe with the military and its soldiers doesn't appear to have much do to with waging illegal wars fought for the 'dumbs**ts' in office who are blindly driven by an unhinged desire to maintain US hegemony and a need to prop up the dysfunctional welfare state. Instead he turns his ire toward kids who are manipulated into serving. There's nothing inherently wrong with military service in and of itself. But under a pathocracy everything is turned upside down serving the worst aspects of a country, and this includes the work of academics and bankers as well. That said, it is also clear that the American educational system is becoming more and more resistant to merely discussing controversial views by the day. Say something offensive, and your career is finished!