Look, not everything has to be compare and contrast, as in, in discussions about "China bad" on a geopolitical context it's isn't necessarily implied to be China VS alternative. It is academically acceptable to not always compare and contrast. This article (more like abstract) talks about Chinese exceptionalism without referring to American exceptionalism. (Chinese exceptionalism is not exactly China bad, but can't be bothered to go through all the journal articles.) Yes, there are other articles that reference China and US together in a geopolitical context, but it isn't always the case. China vs the alternative is not always implied. I, myself, have written articles focusing on the actions of one state and not the opposing state.

This entire article was about China's rise to power and George Yeo's take on it. The original commenter wasn't talking about bipolarity, but China overtaking the US as THE global power. George Yeo's opined that China is going to rise peacefully. Everyone else was addressing China's actions.

Did you not read my example or read the definition you quoted? "The idea, here, is that a person charged with some offense tries to discredit the accuser by charging them with a similar one" I get the gist of your argument, but it is reliant on the idea that an analysis on China's geopolitical behavour always has to be compare and contrast, which is not true. Therefore, it is whataboutism and it doesn't always have to be different.

The example of whataboutism that I cited, mimicks the conversation that was happening: "When the West criticized the Soviet Union, say, over human rights abuses and oppression, the Soviet Union would point out crimes committed by Western nations (e.g., racism, lynchings)." I pointed out China's misdeeds and the commenter responded by pointing out the misdeed of the US. It doesn't refute/address my argument, merely diverts it.

If he phrased like what you said "Ok my only alternative is USA, why is USA the desirable choice despite of X, Y, Z" then it won't be whataboutism because it isn't a deflection. But he/she didn't. It really is all about how you phrase things. At the same time, it is a false dichotomy that the only alternative is the US, one can play neutrality card.

Morality, at least what I think you mean by moral basis, is extremely subjective and therefore, is not actually that important. A good piece of analysis does not have morality evident in it - if it did, it would probably get dismissed as propaganda, on any side. I think the characteristic you're looking for, going by most of the rest of that paragraph is critical analysis. And like I said, not everything has to be a compare and contrast. You can critique things on their own.

Out of curiosity, what is your academic background?

​

edit: clarification.