4 ms·

How about a large part of taxpayers money being used for buying oil and gas from Saudi? Or war in Afghanistan? Or the dire conditions of the factories where the

How about a large part of taxpayers money being used for buying oil and gas from Saudi? Or war in Afghanistan? Or the dire conditions of the factories where the fifth iphone upgrade was made? If you decide to wage a moral victory then at least do it at your own cost.

verve_rat 5y ago
So you are saying that because we don't live in a perfect world, we should all do business with the scum of the Earth? It is all or nothing? We can never start with the case at hand and maybe do better on the other ones later? That's pretty sad dude.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  No my point is our warmongering regime needs a reason to continue the military spending spree. In an ideal world, we don’t have any business transactions with the Middle East where our values clearly don’t match and democracy is just a mockery for dictators to legitimize. Yet last I checked US is in bed with the Saudis even with after the 9/11 attack.
  - indemnity 5y ago
    Here is your 1 rouble payment comrade
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    Yes, and that is bad. But so is Russia. We should stop dealing with both, but not trading with one is better than trading with both, right?
- zo1 5y ago
  The point is for us to figure out how this time it is different. Yes it's arguably more "out there" (though if you ask some, there have been far worse wars/invasions previously that we've ignored), but it's still the same thing. Maybe we'll realize that the big difference this time around is the media going through great lengths to weaponize public sentiment. It's a very bad feedback loop because the media will feed off of it and give the public more of what it wants.
XorNot 5y ago
This is high order whataboutism and still a fallacy. Money we pay to Russia currently pays for their military. Parts, tools, materials to Russia go to maintaining its capacity to wage war. The existence of one injustice doesn't somehow make another okay.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  How is pointing out hypocrisy a fallacy? You may say that it is a dodgy rhetorical device, but it is not fallacious in any way.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    Because it's not an argument against the action, it's a complaint about the lack of other actions. The poster has not presented an argument as to why the sanctions are not a good response, or won't have the intended response, instead they have posted a list of other injustices to which we did not implement sanctions or otherwise take action. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
      >Because it's not an argument against the action Indeed, it is not per se. >it's a complaint about the lack of other actions No, it is not per se. It is a meta-level argument on inconsistency. >The poster has not presented an argument as to why the sanctions are not a good response, or won't have the intended response, instead they have posted a list of other injustices to which we did not implement sanctions or otherwise take action. Yes, there is nothing fallacious about that.
      - avereveard 5y ago
        > meta-level argument on inconsistency If you think that a regional scale conflict and a country yelling nuclear annihilation at every turn are at the same level and needs the same, consistent, response you have no place discussing meta arguments.
emptysongglass 5y ago
Please stop using whataboutism arguments for anything. It's beyond useless in that it posits hypocrisy as an argument to do... nothing. The world is not zero sum and one action done virtuously need not endlessly be weighed against what was not done. Next to ad hominem, it's the lowest common denominator of arguments and doesn't belong here (or anywhere else).

verve_rat 5y ago

So you are saying that because we don't live in a perfect world, we should all do business with the scum of the Earth? It is all or nothing? We can never start with the case at hand and maybe do better on the other ones later? That's pretty sad dude.

mercy_dude 5y ago
No my point is our warmongering regime needs a reason to continue the military spending spree. In an ideal world, we don’t have any business transactions with the Middle East where our values clearly don’t match and democracy is just a mockery for dictators to legitimize. Yet last I checked US is in bed with the Saudis even with after the 9/11 attack.
- indemnity 5y ago
  Here is your 1 rouble payment comrade
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Yes, and that is bad. But so is Russia. We should stop dealing with both, but not trading with one is better than trading with both, right?
zo1 5y ago
The point is for us to figure out how this time it is different. Yes it's arguably more "out there" (though if you ask some, there have been far worse wars/invasions previously that we've ignored), but it's still the same thing. Maybe we'll realize that the big difference this time around is the media going through great lengths to weaponize public sentiment. It's a very bad feedback loop because the media will feed off of it and give the public more of what it wants.

XorNot 5y ago

This is high order whataboutism and still a fallacy. Money we pay to Russia currently pays for their military. Parts, tools, materials to Russia go to maintaining its capacity to wage war. The existence of one injustice doesn't somehow make another okay.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
How is pointing out hypocrisy a fallacy? You may say that it is a dodgy rhetorical device, but it is not fallacious in any way.
- XorNot 5y ago
  Because it's not an argument against the action, it's a complaint about the lack of other actions. The poster has not presented an argument as to why the sanctions are not a good response, or won't have the intended response, instead they have posted a list of other injustices to which we did not implement sanctions or otherwise take action. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    >Because it's not an argument against the action Indeed, it is not per se. >it's a complaint about the lack of other actions No, it is not per se. It is a meta-level argument on inconsistency. >The poster has not presented an argument as to why the sanctions are not a good response, or won't have the intended response, instead they have posted a list of other injustices to which we did not implement sanctions or otherwise take action. Yes, there is nothing fallacious about that.
    - avereveard 5y ago
      > meta-level argument on inconsistency If you think that a regional scale conflict and a country yelling nuclear annihilation at every turn are at the same level and needs the same, consistent, response you have no place discussing meta arguments.

emptysongglass 5y ago

Please stop using whataboutism arguments for anything. It's beyond useless in that it posits hypocrisy as an argument to do... nothing. The world is not zero sum and one action done virtuously need not endlessly be weighed against what was not done. Next to ad hominem, it's the lowest common denominator of arguments and doesn't belong here (or anywhere else).