4 ms·

Well, labeling someone’s comment with a buzzword is not really a counter-argument. Your and his arguments could be labeled as “Tory” but it would be useless fo

Well, labeling someone’s comment with a buzzword is not really a counter-argument. Your and his arguments could be labeled as “Tory” but it would be useless for me to point that out; id rather attempt to reach common ground or understanding.

DonHopkins 9y ago
You seem to have again missed the point that whataboutism isn't a valid counter argument. You've also proven you don't know what the definition of whataboutism is. The fact that you don't happen to know the definition doesn't mean it's a "buzzword". It's a logical fallacy particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda (which is the main point of this discussion). Please look up the real definition before trying to incorrectly define it and confess to being guilty of it, because you don't even understand what you're confessing to. The definition you gave was wrong, even though you are guilty of doing it yourself, and what you're doing is logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest.
- grandalf 9y ago
  I think rather than using a silly made-up word like whataboutism you should simply call out someone's views or comment specifically for whatever logical error you think it contains. I looked at the definition of whataboutism on Wikipedia, and now I think I understand what you are attempting to argue. If person A says "Russia treats political enemies badly" and then person B replies "Well, the US puts its political enemies in Gitmo", you would call that a scenario where person B should have said something specifically to refute person A's statement, but instead made a parallel assertion that does not have any direct relation to the statement made by person A. In your view, in order to refute the claim made by person A, someone would have to provide evidence that in fact Russia does not treat political enemies badly. When someone is heavily partisan and makes the comment of person B above, the intent might be to deflect attention from person A's point. If you view person A and B as adversaries each trying to be objectively right in some highly logical world, then only a strict logical refutation of person A's point would suffice. The definition of whataboutism descries it as a logical fallacy, which is quite telling. The truth is, both claims may be true. Person B's statement does not refute person A's statement, but it is not meant to. In reading through the comments that you and the other person claimed were whataboutism, I think your interpretation was that I was asking rhetorical questions that I thought had an obvious answer which should logically refute your assertion. In fact, I was simply introducing a few scenarios that seem similar to me so that I could better understand how it was so easy for you both to make very broad (and seemingly impulsive) statements with strong implications about the "appropriate" political consequences of journalism. I was hoping that one of you would explain to me some method of analysis that offered insight into all of those scenarios in addition to this Russia stuff. It seems that you did not mean to make broad statements about journalism, only about RT specifically because RT is obviously guilty by virtue of its association with the Russian government. To me that is not obvious, and so when I hear words used like "destabilization" or "terrorism" (these are both propaganda words and I heavily discount any statement containing either one) I have to wonder if perhaps the person making the argument has more of a persuasive motive than a desire to understand the situation or phenomenon in question.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    Rightfully accusing you of "whataboutism" IS simply calling out your views or comment specifically for whatever logical error it contains. You're trolling in bad faith, demanding people provide specific examples then refusing to provide any yourself, and making untrue blanket statements about cable news and then trying to excuse your ignorance by claiming you don't actually know anything about cable news and never watch it. Yet you claim to know so much about RT, but never provide any links to back up any of your claims about it, even after being repeatedly asked. You said that Rachel Maddow's coverage of Flint was suspect because she made an overreach in her coverage of Russia, yet you have no problem with RT broadcasting Kremlin propaganda about Ukraine and don't think that reflects on their coverage of Flynt, to which you conveniently can't find any references, so we just have to take your word. Your arguments have no merit, because you're being intellectually dishonest and trolling. And this is not the place for that. Take it somewhere else where it will be appreciated like /r/The_Donald, if you're not going to stop it here. You're the one who didn't know what the word "whataboutism" meant, and who posted an incorrect definition, yet with your very own words, you actually explicitly confessed to being guilty of whataboutism: "OK I'm guilty." So do you still stand by your confession that you're guilty of "whataboutism", now that you've bothered to skim (but not understand) one article about it? There is nothing "silly" or "made up" about the word "whataboutism". That's proven by the fact that there is a 15 page Wikipedia article with 116 citations in it, including references to "whataboutism" in the Oxford Living Dictionaries and Cambridge Dictionary. What's "made up" is your incorrect definition that you gave for it: "Counter-factual scenarios that reveal your opinion to be illogical and cherry-picked for some emotional reason". What exactly is so "silly" about this -- it seems pretty serious and on-topic to me, comrade: Tactic: Propaganda technique Type: Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) Logic: Logical fallacy Active period: Cold War–present Prominent usage: Soviet Union propaganda, Russian propaganda, Russian annexation of Crimea, Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Donald Trump, Related: Ad hominem, And you are lynching Negroes, The pot calling the kettle black, Red herring, The Mote and the Beam, Clean hands
    - grandalf 9y ago
      I don't think you read the comment to which you replied so I am not sure it's worthwhile to attempt to respond to this scattered rant.

DonHopkins 9y ago

You seem to have again missed the point that whataboutism isn't a valid counter argument. You've also proven you don't know what the definition of whataboutism is. The fact that you don't happen to know the definition doesn't mean it's a "buzzword". It's a logical fallacy particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda (which is the main point of this discussion). Please look up the real definition before trying to incorrectly define it and confess to being guilty of it, because you don't even understand what you're confessing to. The definition you gave was wrong, even though you are guilty of doing it yourself, and what you're doing is logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

grandalf 9y ago
I think rather than using a silly made-up word like whataboutism you should simply call out someone's views or comment specifically for whatever logical error you think it contains. I looked at the definition of whataboutism on Wikipedia, and now I think I understand what you are attempting to argue. If person A says "Russia treats political enemies badly" and then person B replies "Well, the US puts its political enemies in Gitmo", you would call that a scenario where person B should have said something specifically to refute person A's statement, but instead made a parallel assertion that does not have any direct relation to the statement made by person A. In your view, in order to refute the claim made by person A, someone would have to provide evidence that in fact Russia does not treat political enemies badly. When someone is heavily partisan and makes the comment of person B above, the intent might be to deflect attention from person A's point. If you view person A and B as adversaries each trying to be objectively right in some highly logical world, then only a strict logical refutation of person A's point would suffice. The definition of whataboutism descries it as a logical fallacy, which is quite telling. The truth is, both claims may be true. Person B's statement does not refute person A's statement, but it is not meant to. In reading through the comments that you and the other person claimed were whataboutism, I think your interpretation was that I was asking rhetorical questions that I thought had an obvious answer which should logically refute your assertion. In fact, I was simply introducing a few scenarios that seem similar to me so that I could better understand how it was so easy for you both to make very broad (and seemingly impulsive) statements with strong implications about the "appropriate" political consequences of journalism. I was hoping that one of you would explain to me some method of analysis that offered insight into all of those scenarios in addition to this Russia stuff. It seems that you did not mean to make broad statements about journalism, only about RT specifically because RT is obviously guilty by virtue of its association with the Russian government. To me that is not obvious, and so when I hear words used like "destabilization" or "terrorism" (these are both propaganda words and I heavily discount any statement containing either one) I have to wonder if perhaps the person making the argument has more of a persuasive motive than a desire to understand the situation or phenomenon in question.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  Rightfully accusing you of "whataboutism" IS simply calling out your views or comment specifically for whatever logical error it contains. You're trolling in bad faith, demanding people provide specific examples then refusing to provide any yourself, and making untrue blanket statements about cable news and then trying to excuse your ignorance by claiming you don't actually know anything about cable news and never watch it. Yet you claim to know so much about RT, but never provide any links to back up any of your claims about it, even after being repeatedly asked. You said that Rachel Maddow's coverage of Flint was suspect because she made an overreach in her coverage of Russia, yet you have no problem with RT broadcasting Kremlin propaganda about Ukraine and don't think that reflects on their coverage of Flynt, to which you conveniently can't find any references, so we just have to take your word. Your arguments have no merit, because you're being intellectually dishonest and trolling. And this is not the place for that. Take it somewhere else where it will be appreciated like /r/The_Donald, if you're not going to stop it here. You're the one who didn't know what the word "whataboutism" meant, and who posted an incorrect definition, yet with your very own words, you actually explicitly confessed to being guilty of whataboutism: "OK I'm guilty." So do you still stand by your confession that you're guilty of "whataboutism", now that you've bothered to skim (but not understand) one article about it? There is nothing "silly" or "made up" about the word "whataboutism". That's proven by the fact that there is a 15 page Wikipedia article with 116 citations in it, including references to "whataboutism" in the Oxford Living Dictionaries and Cambridge Dictionary. What's "made up" is your incorrect definition that you gave for it: "Counter-factual scenarios that reveal your opinion to be illogical and cherry-picked for some emotional reason". What exactly is so "silly" about this -- it seems pretty serious and on-topic to me, comrade: Tactic: Propaganda technique Type: Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) Logic: Logical fallacy Active period: Cold War–present Prominent usage: Soviet Union propaganda, Russian propaganda, Russian annexation of Crimea, Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Donald Trump, Related: Ad hominem, And you are lynching Negroes, The pot calling the kettle black, Red herring, The Mote and the Beam, Clean hands
  - grandalf 9y ago
    I don't think you read the comment to which you replied so I am not sure it's worthwhile to attempt to respond to this scattered rant.