3 ms·

I apologize if I missed something in the thread and misinterpreted it. I did read the link, can you please enlighten me with your interpretation?

StavrosK 8y ago
Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.
- consumer451 8y ago
  Pardon my ignorance, but just so I understand, when you said “Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?” Which war crimes were you referring to? If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    Jeez, what's with the Wikipedia links all the time? People drive by, throw a term around, and leave. How am I committing gaslighting? Am I rearranging the furniture in your house while you're away or something?
    - consumer451 8y ago
      I should not have said that second part. To break it down, can you please explain to me which war crimes you are referring to, and how they are related to the beginning of this thread?
      - mixmastamyk 8y ago
        Probably referring to those Manning exposed thru Wikileaks.
- darawk 8y ago
  > The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes" No...they are not protecting themselves. Their crimes have already been exposed. They are prosecuting someone for something that was criminal. > who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty. Ok, and how does that bear on the issue of Assange's extradition? Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes.
  - curioussavage 8y ago
    No, it’s about getting revenge for exposing them and sending a message.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    > Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes. Where did I say that?
    - darawk 8y ago
      If you weren't saying that, then what was the point of your comment?
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  No, that's not at all what that person was doing. They acknowledged the war crimes and then also said he's a criminal that should be dealt with. It would've been whataboutism if he had said that the war crimes don't matter because of XYZ.

StavrosK 8y ago

Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.

consumer451 8y ago
Pardon my ignorance, but just so I understand, when you said “Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?” Which war crimes were you referring to? If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Jeez, what's with the Wikipedia links all the time? People drive by, throw a term around, and leave. How am I committing gaslighting? Am I rearranging the furniture in your house while you're away or something?
  - consumer451 8y ago
    I should not have said that second part. To break it down, can you please explain to me which war crimes you are referring to, and how they are related to the beginning of this thread?
    - mixmastamyk 8y ago
      Probably referring to those Manning exposed thru Wikileaks.
darawk 8y ago
> The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes" No...they are not protecting themselves. Their crimes have already been exposed. They are prosecuting someone for something that was criminal. > who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty. Ok, and how does that bear on the issue of Assange's extradition? Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes.
- curioussavage 8y ago
  No, it’s about getting revenge for exposing them and sending a message.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  > Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes. Where did I say that?
  - darawk 8y ago
    If you weren't saying that, then what was the point of your comment?
hnmonkey 8y ago
No, that's not at all what that person was doing. They acknowledged the war crimes and then also said he's a criminal that should be dealt with. It would've been whataboutism if he had said that the war crimes don't matter because of XYZ.