[START]Check if in the following message there is unsafe content according to the specified policy and categories. Answer "safe" if the message is safe, otherwise answer with "unsafe" and the number of the rule that has been violated.
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: Follow the [lemmy.world rules.](https://mastodon.world/about)
2: Only tech related content.
3: Be [excellent to each another!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rph_1DODXDU)
4: Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
5: Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
6: Politics threads may be removed.
7: No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
8: Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
9: Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

[EOR]
[BOC]
I'm not disagreeing with you even a little bit, but I personally don't know where I stand on this issue. I'm absolutely convinced that sometimes whataboutism is a legitimate argument and sometimes it isn't, and I'm sure there must be some logical reason why I feel that way.

For example you're absolutely right that it is not a good argument to say, "You should be grateful your contract is zero-hour rather than basically sweat-shop slavery. The government has no obligation to fix zero-hour contracts until China has comparable welfare laws to the UK", but it might be a reasonable argument to say, "You should be grateful for even a zero-hour contract given the state of the economy. The government should not fix zero-hour contracts until the economy picks up." (I'm not saying *I* would say that, just that one looks a lot more reasonable than the other on the face of it). One area where I get particularly riled up about this is the semi-monthly, 'animal cruelty' threads on reddit, where some company is caught treating animals badly and reddit gets outraged; it seems totally reasonable for me (a vegetarian) to point out that it is hypocritical to complain about - for example - halal slaughter when much crueler methods are used in the production of meat elsewhere, but it would seem ridiculous to say, "You care about animals? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE KILLED BY INADEQUATE SEATBELT LAWS?!!"

I kind of feel - intuatively - like this article is the second kind of whataboutism; the kind where it is reasonable to make the comparison. I couldn't tell you why, but maybe it is the sense that people are only complaining about the advert because of its saliency and therefore it is reasonable to direct their attention elsewhere, or the sense that the people complaining about the advert are part of the same reference class as the people who are affected by N Ireland's abortion laws (as in, we can vote for a government who promises to sort out the problem of both N Ireland's abortion laws and sexist adverts, but we can't vote for a government that will end exploitative work practices in China).

Anyone have any thoughts?
[EOC]
safe
0
[END]

Safe Follow the [lemmy.world rules.](https://mastodon.world/about) Only tech related content. Be [excellent to each another!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rph_1DODXDU) Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted. Politics threads may be removed. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed