4 ms·

This is called “whataboutism”.

moron4hire 5y ago
Just a note: right-wing conservatives don't see "whataboutism" to be a fallacy.
foobar2021 5y ago
> Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you'd sacrifice them out of contempt like this? And now we’ve come full circle. Using “whataboutism” to avoid conversations about topics is a problem. Whether you’re using it to deflect to a different topic or using it as an excuse to avoid talking about a topic altogether. Someone could argue your comment is the latter and is just as harmful. But I think most of that is a limitation of text/internet communication that people don’t consciously notice. It’s much easier to have nuance in an in-person conversation.
- carlisle_ 5y ago
  I don’t follow the logic. Saying something is whataboutism isn’t recursive.
- danbmil99 5y ago
  Yes, I was very impressed by the nuance exhibited through in-person communication on January 6th
hllooo 5y ago
There are two parties and you have to pick one. If the argument is that trends on the republican side are so insane you must vote democrat, it's certainly not whataboutism to argue there are also similarly insane trends on the democratic side... you can disagree but you can't honestly call it whataboutism.
- carlisle_ 5y ago
  > There are two parties and you have to pick one. Well that’s certainly a dishonest premise.
dvt 5y ago
"Whataboutism" is an informal fallacy that most non-technical folks (as in, not logicians) mis-invoke, like almost all other informal fallacies. My argument is not even remotely whataboutism. In fact, it can be even formulated without addressing the "other side" at all: you're making a category error by going from general (party trends) to particular (individual voters). It's simply a bad argument. I only brought up the "other side" to help analogize it, my apologies if it confused things.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- carlisle_ 5y ago
  I can’t reply with emojis, so imagine this comment is just the eye roll emoji.
  - dvt 5y ago
    I'm trying to be as charitable, polite, and thoughtful as possible with my replies. It's a real shame that HN is slowly devolving into reddit.
    - carlisle_ 5y ago
      So polite but still ready to insinuate other people are incapable of making a correct assertion because they are non-technical. To me it’s just painfully obvious you think very highly of yourself.
AYBABTME 5y ago
All these "your side/my side" sideism stuff is going to destroy everything. No one can have any nuanced opinion without all of their individuality being discarded and all weight being given to the party they vote for. It seems to me that the party they vote for is just an ephemeral label and really doesn't suffice in extrapolating much. We should stop contextualizing all conversations on the political affiliation of people.
- danbmil99 5y ago
  I'll take your snowflake of nuanced positions on every issue, and bet on tribalism and dumbed-down sound bytes to win every time

Just a note: right-wing conservatives don't see "whataboutism" to be a fallacy.

foobar2021 5y ago

> Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you'd sacrifice them out of contempt like this? And now we’ve come full circle. Using “whataboutism” to avoid conversations about topics is a problem. Whether you’re using it to deflect to a different topic or using it as an excuse to avoid talking about a topic altogether. Someone could argue your comment is the latter and is just as harmful. But I think most of that is a limitation of text/internet communication that people don’t consciously notice. It’s much easier to have nuance in an in-person conversation.

carlisle_ 5y ago
I don’t follow the logic. Saying something is whataboutism isn’t recursive.
danbmil99 5y ago
Yes, I was very impressed by the nuance exhibited through in-person communication on January 6th

hllooo 5y ago

There are two parties and you have to pick one. If the argument is that trends on the republican side are so insane you must vote democrat, it's certainly not whataboutism to argue there are also similarly insane trends on the democratic side... you can disagree but you can't honestly call it whataboutism.

carlisle_ 5y ago
> There are two parties and you have to pick one. Well that’s certainly a dishonest premise.

dvt 5y ago

"Whataboutism" is an informal fallacy that most non-technical folks (as in, not logicians) mis-invoke, like almost all other informal fallacies. My argument is not even remotely whataboutism. In fact, it can be even formulated without addressing the "other side" at all: you're making a category error by going from general (party trends) to particular (individual voters). It's simply a bad argument. I only brought up the "other side" to help analogize it, my apologies if it confused things.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
carlisle_ 5y ago
I can’t reply with emojis, so imagine this comment is just the eye roll emoji.
- dvt 5y ago
  I'm trying to be as charitable, polite, and thoughtful as possible with my replies. It's a real shame that HN is slowly devolving into reddit.
  - carlisle_ 5y ago
    So polite but still ready to insinuate other people are incapable of making a correct assertion because they are non-technical. To me it’s just painfully obvious you think very highly of yourself.

AYBABTME 5y ago

All these "your side/my side" sideism stuff is going to destroy everything. No one can have any nuanced opinion without all of their individuality being discarded and all weight being given to the party they vote for. It seems to me that the party they vote for is just an ephemeral label and really doesn't suffice in extrapolating much. We should stop contextualizing all conversations on the political affiliation of people.

danbmil99 5y ago
I'll take your snowflake of nuanced positions on every issue, and bet on tribalism and dumbed-down sound bytes to win every time