5 ms·

"Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly r

"Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Yeah, but what's the name of the epistemic fallacy you commit when you single out one instance of a common phenomenon and subject it to extra scrutiny?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- golemotron 9y ago
  That fallacy is called 'journalism.'
- emsy 9y ago
  Also, as someone who criticized the Obama administration while it was still in charge, it's extra annoying. Because suddenly, every little government action is sharply judged. And when you point out that no one cared while Obama was in charge, you get accused of whataboutery.
  - Naritai 9y ago
    What is your goal for pointing out that nobody cared when Obama was in charge? Showing that you were opposed to it before being opposed to it was cool? If you are objectively opposed to something, and now suddenly everybody else doesn't like it either, go ahead and lock in those gains. Say "you know what, you're right, we should get rid of <insert power here>".
ta_donk_gt 9y ago
Call it whatever you want, but you know you are only distracting from the point of comments like these. That point is that you need to be consistent. If you have a problem with some behavior on the other side, then you also need to have a problem when the same behavior happens on your side. If you are ok with one, you must be ok with the other. If you have a problem with one, then you must have a problem with the other. If you want to crucify people on the other side for some behavior, then you must also be okay when that same crucification happens to members of your side. If you write off some behavior when it happens on your side, you must also be willing to write it off when it occurs on the other side. (Sorry to essentially say the same thing multiple times over, but hypocrisy is so engrained in our dna you need to forcefully call attention to it sometimes.)
- Naritai 9y ago
  It's entirely possible to be in favor of open democracies supporting democracy-friendly candidates in other countries, while being against autocracies supporting autocracy-friendly candidates in other countries (including your own). That's really the danger of whataboutism, it basically asserts that any two actions must be considered morally equivalent, regardless of the intended aim. That is simply not the case.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Yeah, but what's the name of the epistemic fallacy you commit when you single out one instance of a common phenomenon and subject it to extra scrutiny?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
golemotron 9y ago
That fallacy is called 'journalism.'
emsy 9y ago
Also, as someone who criticized the Obama administration while it was still in charge, it's extra annoying. Because suddenly, every little government action is sharply judged. And when you point out that no one cared while Obama was in charge, you get accused of whataboutery.
- Naritai 9y ago
  What is your goal for pointing out that nobody cared when Obama was in charge? Showing that you were opposed to it before being opposed to it was cool? If you are objectively opposed to something, and now suddenly everybody else doesn't like it either, go ahead and lock in those gains. Say "you know what, you're right, we should get rid of <insert power here>".

ta_donk_gt 9y ago

Call it whatever you want, but you know you are only distracting from the point of comments like these. That point is that you need to be consistent. If you have a problem with some behavior on the other side, then you also need to have a problem when the same behavior happens on your side. If you are ok with one, you must be ok with the other. If you have a problem with one, then you must have a problem with the other. If you want to crucify people on the other side for some behavior, then you must also be okay when that same crucification happens to members of your side. If you write off some behavior when it happens on your side, you must also be willing to write it off when it occurs on the other side. (Sorry to essentially say the same thing multiple times over, but hypocrisy is so engrained in our dna you need to forcefully call attention to it sometimes.)

Naritai 9y ago
It's entirely possible to be in favor of open democracies supporting democracy-friendly candidates in other countries, while being against autocracies supporting autocracy-friendly candidates in other countries (including your own). That's really the danger of whataboutism, it basically asserts that any two actions must be considered morally equivalent, regardless of the intended aim. That is simply not the case.