4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Claiming that Obama's campaigns were the true microtargeters, and that if

by tmuir 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Claiming that Obama's campaigns were the true microtargeters, and that if we are angry at the actions of generic people, we must then be angry at Obama, because he did these very things. That is the Whataboutism, or tu quoque fallacy. In lieu of anything to back that claim up, I'll just stick with Hutchins Razor, and reply "Nuh Uh."

darawk 9y ago
> Claiming that Obama's campaigns were the true microtargeters, and that if we are angry at the actions of generic people, we must then be angry at Obama, because he did these very things. That is the Whataboutism, or tu quoque fallacy. Obama's campaigns were pretty well known to be engaged in extensive microtargeting. Here: https://www.mediavillage.com/article/how-data-and-micro-targeting-won-the-2012-election-for-obama-antony-young-mindshare-north-america/ https://www.mediavillage.com/article/how-data-and-micro-targ...
jerf 9y ago
Accusations of "whataboutism" are becoming worse than the sin they are trying to prevent. It shouldn't be used as a way of just flushing away the fact that "your side" may also do bad things. It's especially bad when it is used like "A did this bad thing." "Well, Not-A did this bad thing too." "That's just whataboutism... what's important is that A did this bad thing." Well, it must not be that bad if it doesn't bother you when "your side" does it. What if... and try to stick with me here, because this is a pretty radical thought here in 2018... what if both sides are doing a despicable thing, and rather than argue with each other about "whataboutism" we should resist both of them? (In this particular case, I don't think that the campaigns did the exact same things... I think they've been doing all they can possibly get away with for a very long time. So it gets worse every campaign not necessarily because anybody is worse than ever before, but because especially in this century, every four years "all they can possibly get away with" has been growing like gangbusters.)
- tmuir 9y ago
  I guess I've become hardened by the general principle underlying this tactic of debate. There are plenty of people who employ it as their singular or at least favored tactic to nearly every debate, and don't for one second convince me of their good faith. It is especially common to see with respect to Hillary Clinton. It is nearly universally used as discussion ender. If the whatabouter can change the subject to their debater's hypocrisy, nearly any reasonable question can be simply ignored wholesale, by repeatedly bringing up the false equivalency over and over. So you can blame the countless people employing this tactic maliciously, including the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, for any disproportionate skepticism I apply to its use.
  - ohiovr 9y ago
    Text comes in forums that try to exonerate some evil by using the evils of another. If it didn't work it wouldn't be so common. It is a fair term to identify.

by tmuir 9y ago

darawk 9y ago

> Claiming that Obama's campaigns were the true microtargeters, and that if we are angry at the actions of generic people, we must then be angry at Obama, because he did these very things. That is the Whataboutism, or tu quoque fallacy. Obama's campaigns were pretty well known to be engaged in extensive microtargeting. Here: https://www.mediavillage.com/article/how-data-and-micro-targeting-won-the-2012-election-for-obama-antony-young-mindshare-north-america/ https://www.mediavillage.com/article/how-data-and-micro-targ...

jerf 9y ago

Accusations of "whataboutism" are becoming worse than the sin they are trying to prevent. It shouldn't be used as a way of just flushing away the fact that "your side" may also do bad things. It's especially bad when it is used like "A did this bad thing." "Well, Not-A did this bad thing too." "That's just whataboutism... what's important is that A did this bad thing." Well, it must not be that bad if it doesn't bother you when "your side" does it. What if... and try to stick with me here, because this is a pretty radical thought here in 2018... what if both sides are doing a despicable thing, and rather than argue with each other about "whataboutism" we should resist both of them? (In this particular case, I don't think that the campaigns did the exact same things... I think they've been doing all they can possibly get away with for a very long time. So it gets worse every campaign not necessarily because anybody is worse than ever before, but because especially in this century, every four years "all they can possibly get away with" has been growing like gangbusters.)

tmuir 9y ago
I guess I've become hardened by the general principle underlying this tactic of debate. There are plenty of people who employ it as their singular or at least favored tactic to nearly every debate, and don't for one second convince me of their good faith. It is especially common to see with respect to Hillary Clinton. It is nearly universally used as discussion ender. If the whatabouter can change the subject to their debater's hypocrisy, nearly any reasonable question can be simply ignored wholesale, by repeatedly bringing up the false equivalency over and over. So you can blame the countless people employing this tactic maliciously, including the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, for any disproportionate skepticism I apply to its use.
- ohiovr 9y ago
  Text comes in forums that try to exonerate some evil by using the evils of another. If it didn't work it wouldn't be so common. It is a fair term to identify.