4 ms·
I think his point was Airbus also isn't safe, not Boeing is okay.
by Judgmentality 6y ago
I think his point was Airbus also isn't safe, not Boeing is okay.
- avereveard 6y agowhich is a textbook whataboutism
- dataflow 6y agohttps://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism > A conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless > Excusing your mistakes with whataboutism is not the same as defending your record. This was emphatically not what I was doing.
- avereveard 6y ago> by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct and how is highlighting airbus misconduct not a textbook example of this? you even linked the explanation sentence, but did you read it?
- dataflow 6y agoIf you read the entirety of what I wrote in all my comments here it should be fairly obvious how. You seem very keen to start a fight though, and I'm not sure I'm up for a match here, so I'll leave it at this.
- dotancohen 6y agoActually, pointing out similar actions in peers of the accused is a valid method to demonstrate that such actions are not misconduct. Or, if we still insist on calling these actions misconduct, then a double standard has been demonstrated. That said, GGP post did not point out similar actions. Airbus did not risk passengers' lives. That is the issue here: public safety.
- xwolfi 6y agoBut ofc there s a double standard as long as Boeing kills and deflects and Airbus stays silent with no history. Doesnt mean Boeing shouldnt restructure or disappear.
- Judgmentality 6y agoAs the other commenter pointed out, whataboutism would imply defense of Boeing. I think we disagree on what whataboutism means. I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, because we're having a meta argument at this point.