6 ms·

Whataboutism is a lazy rhetoric device, the term was literally coined by Kasparov about Soviet dictator apologists.

by vitno 5y ago

antocv 5y ago
This is literally not a whatabout since we are discussing the same actions here, forcing an airplane down and breaking international laws, norms and traditions. Let us try to decide if some of the posters here are hypocrites or not.
- vitno 5y ago
  Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - Bang2Bay 5y ago
    "There is a precedent and the precedent was followed" is the other sides argument.
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    Disproving an argument is not a prerequisite for exposing hypocrisy, these acts can be done separately. And if the other party doesn't address the accusation of hypocrisy there might not be a need for disproving the argument to them, as their position might be politically motivated and not aimed at resolving the issue in principle.
    - rebuilder 5y ago
      If Charles Manson had said murder was wrong, we might have doubted his sincerity but hardly the point of the actual statement.
      - ghostwriter 5y ago
        in this case, it is more akin to Charles Manson condemning Shoko Asahara for cult activity, and dismissing his "then why are you doing it?" as "whataboutism". It is important to know whether the condemning party applies the same standards to their own activities, because there's no possibility of resolving the issue at hand without both parties applying the same principles and standards on everyone, including themselves. And dismissing the significance of this knowledge as "whataboutism" is short-sighted, because it's the tool of establishing standards of morality, and it gives a hint to third parties about the nature of their neighbours involved in the dispute.
  - fkla 5y ago
    That is what the term means in popular culture, but what are the implications? In practice it means that the side who accuses first (currently mostly SJWs) gets to speak and attack others while using "whataboutism" as a shield to shut up their opponents.
- wwwdonohue 5y ago
  That’s exactly what whataboutism is for. Accusing someone of being a hypocrite without addressing the actual point at all. Edit: and with zero evidence that they might even be a hypocrite in the first place...
  - Bang2Bay 5y ago
    The point is about precedent.
- mr_woozy 5y ago
  wooosh you moron
toiletfuneral 5y ago
Honest question, is your goal to keep the morales incident out of this discussion? Is it not irrelevant?
jessaustin 5y ago
This is the definitive analysis of "whataboutism": https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whataboutism-cold-war-trump https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whatab...
- greesil 5y ago
  What about other analysis? This also seems definitive: https://cjlockett.com/2021/01/10/the-rhetorical-laziness-of-whataboutism/ https://cjlockett.com/2021/01/10/the-rhetorical-laziness-of-...
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Too much on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand to be definitive. He concludes that every example of a centrist democrat doing whataboutism is fine and every example of anyone else doing it as not fine. I'm sure that will convince lots of centrist democrats. The very idea of having a Donald-vs-Bill sexual-assault contest without even mentioning Tara Reade says all we need to know about this person's judgment. To be fair, the first sentence does that too.
    - greesil 5y ago
      Cool. Well you just wasted at least ten minutes of your life thinking about something that I posted disingenuously in order to demonstrate that whataboutism is about distraction rather than have me trying to stay on topic and directly address your points. In a meta way I suppose I did.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Clearly you didn't "waste" any time reading the link I provided. b^) We agree completely on the topic of "whataboutism".
        greesil 5y ago
        I skimmed it and disagreed with it. Generally, if you can't win an argument based on logic, and then emotional appeals, then you can fall back on jurisdiction. You can attack the other person's credibility (you have no jurisdiction), proclaim that no resolution is possible, the world is too complex (we don't have jurisdiction), or as I now realize whataboutism means this is the right jurisdiction, but nothing you said matters because we're arguing the wrong topic. So yeah, whataboutism is the argument of last resort. Ergo, the one used by people who don't have a good argument.

Whataboutism is a lazy rhetoric device, the term was literally coined by Kasparov about Soviet dictator apologists.

by vitno 5y ago

Whataboutism is a lazy rhetoric device, the term was literally coined by Kasparov about Soviet dictator apologists.

This is literally not a whatabout since we are discussing the same actions here, forcing an airplane down and breaking international laws, norms and traditions. Let us try to decide if some of the posters here are hypocrites or not.

vitno 5y ago
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- Bang2Bay 5y ago
  "There is a precedent and the precedent was followed" is the other sides argument.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  Disproving an argument is not a prerequisite for exposing hypocrisy, these acts can be done separately. And if the other party doesn't address the accusation of hypocrisy there might not be a need for disproving the argument to them, as their position might be politically motivated and not aimed at resolving the issue in principle.
  - rebuilder 5y ago
    If Charles Manson had said murder was wrong, we might have doubted his sincerity but hardly the point of the actual statement.
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      in this case, it is more akin to Charles Manson condemning Shoko Asahara for cult activity, and dismissing his "then why are you doing it?" as "whataboutism". It is important to know whether the condemning party applies the same standards to their own activities, because there's no possibility of resolving the issue at hand without both parties applying the same principles and standards on everyone, including themselves. And dismissing the significance of this knowledge as "whataboutism" is short-sighted, because it's the tool of establishing standards of morality, and it gives a hint to third parties about the nature of their neighbours involved in the dispute.
- fkla 5y ago
  That is what the term means in popular culture, but what are the implications? In practice it means that the side who accuses first (currently mostly SJWs) gets to speak and attack others while using "whataboutism" as a shield to shut up their opponents.
wwwdonohue 5y ago
That’s exactly what whataboutism is for. Accusing someone of being a hypocrite without addressing the actual point at all. Edit: and with zero evidence that they might even be a hypocrite in the first place...
- Bang2Bay 5y ago
  The point is about precedent.
mr_woozy 5y ago
wooosh you moron

toiletfuneral 5y ago

Honest question, is your goal to keep the morales incident out of this discussion? Is it not irrelevant?

jessaustin 5y ago

This is the definitive analysis of "whataboutism": https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whataboutism-cold-war-trump https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whatab...

greesil 5y ago
What about other analysis? This also seems definitive: https://cjlockett.com/2021/01/10/the-rhetorical-laziness-of-whataboutism/ https://cjlockett.com/2021/01/10/the-rhetorical-laziness-of-...
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Too much on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand to be definitive. He concludes that every example of a centrist democrat doing whataboutism is fine and every example of anyone else doing it as not fine. I'm sure that will convince lots of centrist democrats. The very idea of having a Donald-vs-Bill sexual-assault contest without even mentioning Tara Reade says all we need to know about this person's judgment. To be fair, the first sentence does that too.
  - greesil 5y ago
    Cool. Well you just wasted at least ten minutes of your life thinking about something that I posted disingenuously in order to demonstrate that whataboutism is about distraction rather than have me trying to stay on topic and directly address your points. In a meta way I suppose I did.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Clearly you didn't "waste" any time reading the link I provided. b^) We agree completely on the topic of "whataboutism".
      - greesil 5y ago
        I skimmed it and disagreed with it. Generally, if you can't win an argument based on logic, and then emotional appeals, then you can fall back on jurisdiction. You can attack the other person's credibility (you have no jurisdiction), proclaim that no resolution is possible, the world is too complex (we don't have jurisdiction), or as I now realize whataboutism means this is the right jurisdiction, but nothing you said matters because we're arguing the wrong topic. So yeah, whataboutism is the argument of last resort. Ergo, the one used by people who don't have a good argument.