35 ms·
But he did though...and there was no scandal then. Why now?
by curious_fella1 9y ago
But he did though...and there was no scandal then. Why now?
- krapp 9y agoGo read the responses in the other threads. Not that it's actually going to matter.
- yellow_postit 9y agoWhataboutism isn't a defense. Folks can legitimately be outraged and push for change based on CA. Reflection on past or ongoing abuses should absolutely happen.
- throwaway84742 9y agoIt’s not whataboutism in the sense that both campaigns have done things that I would like to see outlawed. I was merely pointing out a peculiar selectivity in reporting and outrage.
- Armisael16 9y agoThat's definitional whataboutism.
- throwaway84742 9y agoThe definition of whataboutism is excusing someone’s actions because someone else has done the same. What I’m pointing out here is the opposite.
- Armisael16 9y agoWhataboutism isn’t excusing; it’s deflecting. To quote from the OED: “The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue” This is exactly what you’ve done.
- ionised 9y agoWhile whataboutism is definitey toxic to conversation, I've noticed a lot people tend to throw accusations of whataboutism around when they are uncomfortable with their hypocrisy being pointed out. This is also highly damaging to discourse.
- catishead 9y agoIt looks like there is a lot of trolling on this thread. Just in case there is not, there was no scandal because Obama was not a foreign power intent on destabilizing the US government.