I hate how liberals can create a meaningless label like whataboutism and then repeat it endlessly until it becomes an argument for them. Most of these labels were created because they are too lazy or ignorant to counter argument. Their debate capabilities rival that of a child.
That’s a logical fallacy not a meaningless label. Do you know what a straw man argument is? Whataboutism is like that, it’s a debate tactic people use in arguments. It’s called a fallacy because it doesn’t actually settle arguments but instead uses poor logic to make it appear that the person using it is winning.
To use one of the rights favorite whatabouts.
Trump is a traitor. Saying well what about Hunter Biden doesn’t make Trump less of a traitor, but instead tries to derail the argument and make it about Hunter Biden.
Exposing hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy. A person that engages in debate in good faith will not use hypocritical statements, at least not intentionally. Hypocrisy must always be pointed out to construct a serious and scientific understanding of reality.
There’s a difference between exposing hypocrisy and trying to change the subject to derail a conversation.
Trump can be a traitor and Hunter Biden a coke head, both of these things can be true. Bringing up Hunter’s coke problem every fucking time Trump’s crimes get mentioned is whataboutism.
It is a form of intellectual dishonesty, like a strawman. i.e. a logical fallacy.
There’s a point your making, but even you fail to understand it. A proper logic fallacy would be to apply a moral approach to a topic where it is originally supposed to realist/technical approach. An example of this would be the discussion of the ukraine war, by stating that ukraine cannot and will never win is a realist approach to a major geopolitical situation, and the continuing the war is only to the detriment of ukranian, and russian lives to a war which had been decided since day 1. The true ‘whataboutism’ is when liberals apply a moral aspect and deviate the conversation by stating “ukraine experiences (uninformative and unbacked knowledge) genocide by the russians” or “ukraine is fighting for their life wouldn’t you do the same?” That’s whataboutism, as its shifting the tone of the conversation from an actual depiction of ukraine, to the enlightened image ukraine has of fighting barbaric invaders who want to destroy their culture (P.S. again bullshit since russia only wants the russian-speaking areas which have been trying to secede only for the ukranian army to continue to discriminate and maim them). There’s no logic backing them here, every analysis, every professional paper, and every person with a thinking brain can properly decipher that ukraine can never win, even the liberals who know this try to deviate from the conservation into a moral issue, for them its to successfully gear the conversation into good vs evil one, so that they can deny the logic but still resemble a well-reasoned argument. That’s logic fallacy.
I appreciated the well thought out response but your still painting the same tired picture. My sides right and yours wrong. Look at how you talk about the true whatabotism being a thing liberals do instead of it being a logical mistake all humans can make.
Both sides do it. When liberals bring it up it’s because they’re tired of Fox Entertainment distracting from very real crimes Trump committed. If Hunter is a criminal, lock him up too.
Anyway, you all keep enjoying your projections and circle jerks. I’m out for real this time because you’re the first honest response I have had and frankly the rest of you are to caught in your own echo chamber to hear anything but GOP propaganda.
Days late to this but the point I was making a point from our perspective, that’s why I talked about the russian-ukraine war. And frankly a lot of people (including me) is really tired of liberals using ‘whataboutism’ or ‘logic fallacy’ to incorrectly shut down a conversation. I agree communists can incorrectly post information regarding certain topics, however thats far from even a minority. But liberals do base their entire personality, and ideology on denying logic.
The other point why people bring hunter biden is that he’s clearly done stuff that a poor, or minority person would be locked up for decades. Yet he escapes crime simply because he’s born into a wealthy family, and is a president’s son. He’s literally a fortunate son. People seem to forgotten there’s evidence of him snorting cocaine, and having sex with prostitutes, all illegal under US law, and people have died from these laws, which biden has voted in, and put into place. We’re also tired of democrats support and funding fascists, and then turning around to us, the majority, to bail out their mistake, they literally count on our better judgement, and morals to bail out their shitty, money-grabbing ones. This is not how a democracy works.
Shame, at least do think about this information for a while, and reflect on why we think this way. Or you can ignore, either way.
There are some paranoid levels of thinking in some of that stuff. Like when a person thinks someone is a “x foreign country spy” because they disagree. It’s possible for people to break out of that mode of thinking, but when they are in that mode, it’s next to impossible to get through because everything you say that is in disagreement is “because you are trying to deceive them.”
Liberals claiming someone is doing whataboutism seems like a component of this thinking, with a belief that the one doing the “whataboutism” is attempting to deceive. But although it’s (probably? I haven’t analyzed it in enough depth to say with certainty) possible for someone to deceive in that way, it’s also possible to compare two things for a variety of rhetorical purposes that have nothing to do with dishonesty. Such as pointing out the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world if someone tries to say x foreign country is “authoritarian” in contrast to the US being “free”; that’s not whataboutism, it’s a factual point that undermines the narrative of the US having some kind of greater moral standing from which it can properly judge other countries.
If anything, I would say imperialists, liberals, tend to be more engaged in actual whataboutism, even if unconsciously. Like if you try to point out something fundamentally wrong with the US, claiming that alternatives are way worse. Which in that regard also seems to be in bed with doomerism (or more formally maybe, capitalist realism).
Oh yeah I’ve noticed that as well, it’s absolutely inconceivable for these people that somebody could genuinely disagree with them. If you have a contrary opinion that must be because you have some secret agenda. It’s kind of funny to unpack to be honest because what are they even saying there. When they say you’re shilling for the see see pee or whatever, they’re still acknowledging that you ultimately prefer that system. Yet, according to them, your view should be dismissed because anything that’s not western liberalism is somehow evil.
The whole whataboutism thing is fundamentally a logical fallacy. It’s basically a rhetorical device to create a double moral standard for yourself and your adversaries. Why should others be held to a higher standard than one holds themselves, it doesn’t make any sense.
I think it’s because the programming cuts off the ability to see that the programming isn’t actual education nor does it encourage thought, but quite the opposite. So if someone disagrees it’s because they have different programming and that is the only explanation. It’s all brainless knee-jerk reaction.
I hate how liberals can create a meaningless label like whataboutism and then repeat it endlessly until it becomes an argument for them. Most of these labels were created because they are too lazy or ignorant to counter argument. Their debate capabilities rival that of a child.
That’s a logical fallacy not a meaningless label. Do you know what a straw man argument is? Whataboutism is like that, it’s a debate tactic people use in arguments. It’s called a fallacy because it doesn’t actually settle arguments but instead uses poor logic to make it appear that the person using it is winning.
To use one of the rights favorite whatabouts.
Trump is a traitor. Saying well what about Hunter Biden doesn’t make Trump less of a traitor, but instead tries to derail the argument and make it about Hunter Biden.
Whataboutism
Exposing hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy. A person that engages in debate in good faith will not use hypocritical statements, at least not intentionally. Hypocrisy must always be pointed out to construct a serious and scientific understanding of reality.
There’s a difference between exposing hypocrisy and trying to change the subject to derail a conversation.
Trump can be a traitor and Hunter Biden a coke head, both of these things can be true. Bringing up Hunter’s coke problem every fucking time Trump’s crimes get mentioned is whataboutism.
It is a form of intellectual dishonesty, like a strawman. i.e. a logical fallacy.
There’s a point your making, but even you fail to understand it. A proper logic fallacy would be to apply a moral approach to a topic where it is originally supposed to realist/technical approach. An example of this would be the discussion of the ukraine war, by stating that ukraine cannot and will never win is a realist approach to a major geopolitical situation, and the continuing the war is only to the detriment of ukranian, and russian lives to a war which had been decided since day 1. The true ‘whataboutism’ is when liberals apply a moral aspect and deviate the conversation by stating “ukraine experiences (uninformative and unbacked knowledge) genocide by the russians” or “ukraine is fighting for their life wouldn’t you do the same?” That’s whataboutism, as its shifting the tone of the conversation from an actual depiction of ukraine, to the enlightened image ukraine has of fighting barbaric invaders who want to destroy their culture (P.S. again bullshit since russia only wants the russian-speaking areas which have been trying to secede only for the ukranian army to continue to discriminate and maim them). There’s no logic backing them here, every analysis, every professional paper, and every person with a thinking brain can properly decipher that ukraine can never win, even the liberals who know this try to deviate from the conservation into a moral issue, for them its to successfully gear the conversation into good vs evil one, so that they can deny the logic but still resemble a well-reasoned argument. That’s logic fallacy.
I appreciated the well thought out response but your still painting the same tired picture. My sides right and yours wrong. Look at how you talk about the true whatabotism being a thing liberals do instead of it being a logical mistake all humans can make.
Both sides do it. When liberals bring it up it’s because they’re tired of Fox Entertainment distracting from very real crimes Trump committed. If Hunter is a criminal, lock him up too.
Anyway, you all keep enjoying your projections and circle jerks. I’m out for real this time because you’re the first honest response I have had and frankly the rest of you are to caught in your own echo chamber to hear anything but GOP propaganda.
Days late to this but the point I was making a point from our perspective, that’s why I talked about the russian-ukraine war. And frankly a lot of people (including me) is really tired of liberals using ‘whataboutism’ or ‘logic fallacy’ to incorrectly shut down a conversation. I agree communists can incorrectly post information regarding certain topics, however thats far from even a minority. But liberals do base their entire personality, and ideology on denying logic.
The other point why people bring hunter biden is that he’s clearly done stuff that a poor, or minority person would be locked up for decades. Yet he escapes crime simply because he’s born into a wealthy family, and is a president’s son. He’s literally a fortunate son. People seem to forgotten there’s evidence of him snorting cocaine, and having sex with prostitutes, all illegal under US law, and people have died from these laws, which biden has voted in, and put into place. We’re also tired of democrats support and funding fascists, and then turning around to us, the majority, to bail out their mistake, they literally count on our better judgement, and morals to bail out their shitty, money-grabbing ones. This is not how a democracy works.
Shame, at least do think about this information for a while, and reflect on why we think this way. Or you can ignore, either way.
There are some paranoid levels of thinking in some of that stuff. Like when a person thinks someone is a “x foreign country spy” because they disagree. It’s possible for people to break out of that mode of thinking, but when they are in that mode, it’s next to impossible to get through because everything you say that is in disagreement is “because you are trying to deceive them.”
Liberals claiming someone is doing whataboutism seems like a component of this thinking, with a belief that the one doing the “whataboutism” is attempting to deceive. But although it’s (probably? I haven’t analyzed it in enough depth to say with certainty) possible for someone to deceive in that way, it’s also possible to compare two things for a variety of rhetorical purposes that have nothing to do with dishonesty. Such as pointing out the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world if someone tries to say x foreign country is “authoritarian” in contrast to the US being “free”; that’s not whataboutism, it’s a factual point that undermines the narrative of the US having some kind of greater moral standing from which it can properly judge other countries.
If anything, I would say imperialists, liberals, tend to be more engaged in actual whataboutism, even if unconsciously. Like if you try to point out something fundamentally wrong with the US, claiming that alternatives are way worse. Which in that regard also seems to be in bed with doomerism (or more formally maybe, capitalist realism).
Oh yeah I’ve noticed that as well, it’s absolutely inconceivable for these people that somebody could genuinely disagree with them. If you have a contrary opinion that must be because you have some secret agenda. It’s kind of funny to unpack to be honest because what are they even saying there. When they say you’re shilling for the see see pee or whatever, they’re still acknowledging that you ultimately prefer that system. Yet, according to them, your view should be dismissed because anything that’s not western liberalism is somehow evil.
The whole whataboutism thing is fundamentally a logical fallacy. It’s basically a rhetorical device to create a double moral standard for yourself and your adversaries. Why should others be held to a higher standard than one holds themselves, it doesn’t make any sense.
I think it’s because the programming cuts off the ability to see that the programming isn’t actual education nor does it encourage thought, but quite the opposite. So if someone disagrees it’s because they have different programming and that is the only explanation. It’s all brainless knee-jerk reaction.