4 ms·

The very essence of "whataboutism" is to deflect criticism by directing it at an unrelated party. Zuckerberg has literally no connection to this story, and brin

The very essence of "whataboutism" is to deflect criticism by directing it at an unrelated party. Zuckerberg has literally no connection to this story, and bringing him up in this context is an intellectually dishonest attempt to change the subject. Perspective is about seeing the same thing from different angles. "But what about Zuckerberg" is not a difference in perspective, it's two completely different subjects.

xstartup 8y ago
More intellectually dishonest thing is to not recognize that both of them belong to an evil class of billionaires. If there is a rabid dog in the street where you resided, it's not a big problem. But if there are 10 rabid dogs there, the severity of the issue is much higher.
- orf 8y ago
  > More intellectually dishonest thing is to not recognize that both of them belong to an evil class of billionaires. But this article isn't about the evil class of billionaires and who belongs to that class is it? So, it's whataboutism: 'what about mark zuckerberg?'.
  - xstartup 8y ago
    Kinda funny, that's all i got from this article.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >But this article isn't about the evil class of billionaires and who belongs to that class is it Only if we restrict our thinking into how the article frames the world. Which is a sad way of going about reading things...
    - orf 8y ago
      Nobodies thinking should be restricted by the framing of an article. I'm just agreeing that it's blatent whataboutism and kind of off topic to bring up something unrelated. I actually do think Mark is likely more dangerous. > The very essence of "whataboutism" is to deflect criticism by directing it at an unrelated party.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  I don't get your analogy. A single rabid dog on your street is a HUGE problem.
coldtea 8y ago
>The very essence of "whataboutism" is to deflect criticism by directing it at an unrelated party. The whole idea is that no party is "unrelated" and anything only makes sense when contrasted and compared, not on its own, on some absolute scale. Even in the original Cold War meaning, the two parties weren't unrelated at all -- they were engaged in a Cold War, and one was criticizing the other. The accusation of whataboutism was then used to suss one side and keep the discussion one sided. The whole point of accusations of whataboutism is to prevent the conversation to expand -- it's literally a thought-stopper. >Perspective is about seeing the same thing from different angles. "But what about Zuckerberg" is not a difference in perspective, it's two completely different subjects. That's not even a cop out. Perspective is about seeing a thing in general context -- how it measures, and how important it is related to others. Not merely seeing two aspects of it. "Verb. put something into perspective. (idiomatic) To compare something with a similar thing to give a clearer, more accurate idea. You can put your worries into perspective when you realise how many people in the world are so much worse off than you."

xstartup 8y ago

More intellectually dishonest thing is to not recognize that both of them belong to an evil class of billionaires. If there is a rabid dog in the street where you resided, it's not a big problem. But if there are 10 rabid dogs there, the severity of the issue is much higher.

orf 8y ago
> More intellectually dishonest thing is to not recognize that both of them belong to an evil class of billionaires. But this article isn't about the evil class of billionaires and who belongs to that class is it? So, it's whataboutism: 'what about mark zuckerberg?'.
- xstartup 8y ago
  Kinda funny, that's all i got from this article.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >But this article isn't about the evil class of billionaires and who belongs to that class is it Only if we restrict our thinking into how the article frames the world. Which is a sad way of going about reading things...
  - orf 8y ago
    Nobodies thinking should be restricted by the framing of an article. I'm just agreeing that it's blatent whataboutism and kind of off topic to bring up something unrelated. I actually do think Mark is likely more dangerous. > The very essence of "whataboutism" is to deflect criticism by directing it at an unrelated party.
quadrangle 8y ago
I don't get your analogy. A single rabid dog on your street is a HUGE problem.

coldtea 8y ago

>The very essence of "whataboutism" is to deflect criticism by directing it at an unrelated party. The whole idea is that no party is "unrelated" and anything only makes sense when contrasted and compared, not on its own, on some absolute scale. Even in the original Cold War meaning, the two parties weren't unrelated at all -- they were engaged in a Cold War, and one was criticizing the other. The accusation of whataboutism was then used to suss one side and keep the discussion one sided. The whole point of accusations of whataboutism is to prevent the conversation to expand -- it's literally a thought-stopper. >Perspective is about seeing the same thing from different angles. "But what about Zuckerberg" is not a difference in perspective, it's two completely different subjects. That's not even a cop out. Perspective is about seeing a thing in general context -- how it measures, and how important it is related to others. Not merely seeing two aspects of it. "Verb. put something into perspective. (idiomatic) To compare something with a similar thing to give a clearer, more accurate idea. You can put your worries into perspective when you realise how many people in the world are so much worse off than you."