5 ms·

> I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standard

> I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy. Please actually read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

EGreg 4y ago
Trust me, not only did I read it, but I also thought through these issues over the years. "Yes, Politician B did do this-or-that immoral thing, but then again so do other politicians. So what's the big deal?" This is not what's being said. What's being said is: We typically want to stay neutral among conflicts. You are pressuring us to take an unprecedented step of banning athletes from country X because country X did an extremely egregious thing B. Sure, let's do it. Can we also ban country Y who did B times 10? No, you can't. If you try we will retaliate! So, you aren't really concerned about the principle. You first pick a target country (e.g. Israel) and then you come up with some spurious reasons which you don't actually believe in, just to bully us into taking this action It's not about "whether it's not a big deal". It's about comparing apples to apples. Having a sense of proportion. "You must eject this person from the group. They farted. That's beyond the pale." "But you have been farting far more, and also punching people in the face, and you are still here. Should I eject you too?" "Stop your Whataboutism! We are only talking about this one person!" THAT is a logical fallacy
- kstenerud 4y ago
  Actually no, it's about moral shifts. The morality of today is very, very, very different from what it was a mere thousand years ago. Brigandry (killing travelers on the road so that you can take their stuff) was once considered a noble profession, for example. But the world moves on, and morality has a tendency to move in tectonic shifts. Suddenly (it seems), what was okay is no longer okay, because the people say so. "Suddenly", it's not okay to kill passers-by and take their stuff. "Suddenly", it's not okay to treat children any way you please as their parents and masters. "Suddenly", it's only natural that a man doesn't need to be of noble birth to vote. "Suddenly", it's even a woman's right to vote. "Suddenly", apartheid isn't okay anymore. "Suddenly", you're not allowed to kick your dog anymore. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of those "suddenlys". Wars of conquest (i.e. invading and annexing a neighboring country) fell out of favor in the 19th century, with the last major hurrah in the 1930s. The world has moved on, and it's no longer okay to do that. We condemn Russia because we don't allow that sort of behavior anymore. But throwing "what about America doing X and Y?" around would be like protesting anti-apartheid campaigns against South Africa just because racial inequality and violence hadn't been solved in America (in fact, there was a fair bit of whataboutism by those who opposed changing the South African order). It just comes off as crass and self-serving in the end. If you want real change, you push for a movement and solidarity against evil. That's what these Ukrainian woman have done, and it's beautiful to see. The whataboutism that tears down their supports on the other hand, is a most insidious evil, because you're basically telling Americans that they have no right to stand against Russia's evil acts (the call of hypocrisy, tu-quoque). You shame potential allies into inaction against a clear and present evil, which is a horrible thing to do on so many levels.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    The question is simple. Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question. I think for the same reason this happens: https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arrest-icc-judges-american-soldiers-afghan-war-crimes https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arr... I think that speaks for itself. What is the year when it became "not ok to invade, occupy and bomb other countries that present no threat to you and are not even within 1000 miles of you"? Because that's kind of the thing that matters, right? You mentioned 1930. Since then, USA has been involved in 80% of the wars, and has 800 bases around the world while the rest of the world combined has 30. Who needs "conquest" when you can intimidate everyone into doing what you want? Do you not see the issue here? It's simple ... if we all suddenly grew a conscience, great! So will you join people in calling for sanctions on USA and ostracism of US athletes? Can you link us to a post about that? Here is Mehdi Hassan doing it -- will you? https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1520952450286755841?lang=en https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1520952450286755841?l... And if not -- the real question is why not and why do you feel strongly in one case but not the other?
    - kstenerud 4y ago
      > The question is simple. It most certainly is not. > Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question. This does reach the crux of the matter. Why don't we see Cubans boycotting American athletes and gaining major international support? Why aren't Syrians raising hell at every athletic competition, protesting that Americans and Turks are allowed to compete? Everyone's free to join in and boycott, so why don't they? Answer: Because on the whole it's not important enough to them to warrant the investment of effort and time. Because America's behaviors aren't that far out of the international norm of today (sad to say). That "suddenly" hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for quite some time. And that's how we measure moral shifts. One day the shittier things America does today will be protest worthy, but our morality has not moved that far yet, and we still have much bigger fish to fry. So to answer your question: I feel strongly about one case but not the other because they are not equivalent. And worrying about all the little problems before starting to solve the big ones makes the perfect the enemy of the good. And that's the beef I have over whataboutism: It makes storms in teacups. That's what it's designed for, and why it's rightly called a logical fallacy.

EGreg 4y ago

Trust me, not only did I read it, but I also thought through these issues over the years. "Yes, Politician B did do this-or-that immoral thing, but then again so do other politicians. So what's the big deal?" This is not what's being said. What's being said is: We typically want to stay neutral among conflicts. You are pressuring us to take an unprecedented step of banning athletes from country X because country X did an extremely egregious thing B. Sure, let's do it. Can we also ban country Y who did B times 10? No, you can't. If you try we will retaliate! So, you aren't really concerned about the principle. You first pick a target country (e.g. Israel) and then you come up with some spurious reasons which you don't actually believe in, just to bully us into taking this action It's not about "whether it's not a big deal". It's about comparing apples to apples. Having a sense of proportion. "You must eject this person from the group. They farted. That's beyond the pale." "But you have been farting far more, and also punching people in the face, and you are still here. Should I eject you too?" "Stop your Whataboutism! We are only talking about this one person!" THAT is a logical fallacy

kstenerud 4y ago
Actually no, it's about moral shifts. The morality of today is very, very, very different from what it was a mere thousand years ago. Brigandry (killing travelers on the road so that you can take their stuff) was once considered a noble profession, for example. But the world moves on, and morality has a tendency to move in tectonic shifts. Suddenly (it seems), what was okay is no longer okay, because the people say so. "Suddenly", it's not okay to kill passers-by and take their stuff. "Suddenly", it's not okay to treat children any way you please as their parents and masters. "Suddenly", it's only natural that a man doesn't need to be of noble birth to vote. "Suddenly", it's even a woman's right to vote. "Suddenly", apartheid isn't okay anymore. "Suddenly", you're not allowed to kick your dog anymore. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of those "suddenlys". Wars of conquest (i.e. invading and annexing a neighboring country) fell out of favor in the 19th century, with the last major hurrah in the 1930s. The world has moved on, and it's no longer okay to do that. We condemn Russia because we don't allow that sort of behavior anymore. But throwing "what about America doing X and Y?" around would be like protesting anti-apartheid campaigns against South Africa just because racial inequality and violence hadn't been solved in America (in fact, there was a fair bit of whataboutism by those who opposed changing the South African order). It just comes off as crass and self-serving in the end. If you want real change, you push for a movement and solidarity against evil. That's what these Ukrainian woman have done, and it's beautiful to see. The whataboutism that tears down their supports on the other hand, is a most insidious evil, because you're basically telling Americans that they have no right to stand against Russia's evil acts (the call of hypocrisy, tu-quoque). You shame potential allies into inaction against a clear and present evil, which is a horrible thing to do on so many levels.
- EGreg 4y ago
  The question is simple. Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question. I think for the same reason this happens: https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arrest-icc-judges-american-soldiers-afghan-war-crimes https://www.france24.com/en/20180910-usa-trump-threatens-arr... I think that speaks for itself. What is the year when it became "not ok to invade, occupy and bomb other countries that present no threat to you and are not even within 1000 miles of you"? Because that's kind of the thing that matters, right? You mentioned 1930. Since then, USA has been involved in 80% of the wars, and has 800 bases around the world while the rest of the world combined has 30. Who needs "conquest" when you can intimidate everyone into doing what you want? Do you not see the issue here? It's simple ... if we all suddenly grew a conscience, great! So will you join people in calling for sanctions on USA and ostracism of US athletes? Can you link us to a post about that? Here is Mehdi Hassan doing it -- will you? https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1520952450286755841?lang=en https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1520952450286755841?l... And if not -- the real question is why not and why do you feel strongly in one case but not the other?
  - kstenerud 4y ago
    > The question is simple. It most certainly is not. > Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question. This does reach the crux of the matter. Why don't we see Cubans boycotting American athletes and gaining major international support? Why aren't Syrians raising hell at every athletic competition, protesting that Americans and Turks are allowed to compete? Everyone's free to join in and boycott, so why don't they? Answer: Because on the whole it's not important enough to them to warrant the investment of effort and time. Because America's behaviors aren't that far out of the international norm of today (sad to say). That "suddenly" hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for quite some time. And that's how we measure moral shifts. One day the shittier things America does today will be protest worthy, but our morality has not moved that far yet, and we still have much bigger fish to fry. So to answer your question: I feel strongly about one case but not the other because they are not equivalent. And worrying about all the little problems before starting to solve the big ones makes the perfect the enemy of the good. And that's the beef I have over whataboutism: It makes storms in teacups. That's what it's designed for, and why it's rightly called a logical fallacy.