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.
A correct example would be to say that Both Trump and Hunter Biden should be held to the same standard. What people point out when liberals screech whataboutism is that the west holds itself to a different standard than its adversaries. The same way a legal system has to apply law in a consistent fashion, countries must be held to the same standard as well. If people in western countries are outraged by other countries doing the same thing the west does, then they should fix their own countries first before pointing fingers at others. It’s really that simple.
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.
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.
I understand that this is just an example you made to explain the concept, but the things people here say that are called whattaboutisms rarely fit your description. Most often, you’ll have someone bring up involvement of a western country (usually burgerland) in causing a problem that is being pinned on the designated bad country of the week. This isn’t an attempt to derail the conversation: this is an attempt to get to the root of the issue.
And relying on calling out fallacies to shut down a point is just the fallacist’s fallacy in the flesh; so do any of you ever have an actual point to make? Or are you just another bad-faith hypocrite? Because that sounds a lot like “every time we make up an atrocity only to get called out for an actual atrocity we committed, we’re gonna shriek ‘whataboutism’”; and that’s all the intellectual honesty of a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
not agreeing with a person is not necessarily a logical fallacy. It could be a difference in assessment of what info is factual. In order to assess a contradiction in logic, one must first verify that there is no contradiction in facts.
I’m more making a jab at how libs will just declare our argument to be fallacious (usually with “whataboutism” as their favourite) in order to dismiss the argument without actually reading it. It’s the “argumentum ad liberales dissensio” fallacy. We disagree with liberals so our argument must be fallacious, they just need to spin wheel to pick one.
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.
I think the term whatsboutism got coined because of how Fox Entertainment uses it. Mention Trump and then say something like well what about Hunter. It’s a way to distract and spread propaganda.
Liberals do it too.
I don’t identify as liberal or conservative. I grew up working class and support strong unions. Which neither the GOP or Democrats do. They’re both the party of the rich, as you eluded to in your post.
One wants total power and the other wants to keep the status quo with the corporate elite. I want to seize the means of production and hold all of these assholes accountable.
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
A correct example would be to say that Both Trump and Hunter Biden should be held to the same standard. What people point out when liberals screech whataboutism is that the west holds itself to a different standard than its adversaries. The same way a legal system has to apply law in a consistent fashion, countries must be held to the same standard as well. If people in western countries are outraged by other countries doing the same thing the west does, then they should fix their own countries first before pointing fingers at others. It’s really that simple.
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.
I understand that this is just an example you made to explain the concept, but the things people here say that are called whattaboutisms rarely fit your description. Most often, you’ll have someone bring up involvement of a western country (usually burgerland) in causing a problem that is being pinned on the designated bad country of the week. This isn’t an attempt to derail the conversation: this is an attempt to get to the root of the issue.
And relying on calling out fallacies to shut down a point is just the fallacist’s fallacy in the flesh; so do any of you ever have an actual point to make? Or are you just another bad-faith hypocrite? Because that sounds a lot like “every time we make up an atrocity only to get called out for an actual atrocity we committed, we’re gonna shriek ‘whataboutism’”; and that’s all the intellectual honesty of a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
If the point someone is making is a fallacy then they are not addressing the original point and dodging an honest debate.
And holy shit the amount of projection in this thread!
care to elaborate?
We don’t agree with this person, which is clearly a logical fallacy, they just haven’t figured out which one yet.
not agreeing with a person is not necessarily a logical fallacy. It could be a difference in assessment of what info is factual. In order to assess a contradiction in logic, one must first verify that there is no contradiction in facts.
I’m more making a jab at how libs will just declare our argument to be fallacious (usually with “whataboutism” as their favourite) in order to dismiss the argument without actually reading it. It’s the “argumentum ad liberales dissensio” fallacy. We disagree with liberals so our argument must be fallacious, they just need to spin wheel to pick one.
nah, was clear after I posted I wandered into a right wing echo chamber so I will bow out and let you all keep circle jerking over my downvotes.
May your jimmies remain unrustled, never having to contemplate your assumptions.
Projection
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.
I hear you.
I think the term whatsboutism got coined because of how Fox Entertainment uses it. Mention Trump and then say something like well what about Hunter. It’s a way to distract and spread propaganda.
Liberals do it too.
I don’t identify as liberal or conservative. I grew up working class and support strong unions. Which neither the GOP or Democrats do. They’re both the party of the rich, as you eluded to in your post.
One wants total power and the other wants to keep the status quo with the corporate elite. I want to seize the means of production and hold all of these assholes accountable.
Musk and Bezos, Trump and Hunter too.
You aren’t understanding. By attacking a US rival you are promoting the US and helping them