6 ms·

Classic whataboutism.

by Chyzwar 1y ago

HPsquared 1y ago
There's a fine line between whataboutism and precedent.
- inverted_flag 1y ago
  I look forward to the FBI's thorough investigation of Hegseth then.
  - Sabinus 1y ago
    And Hegseth answering questions before a House committee for 11 hours, like Clinton did.
TaurenHunter 1y ago
[flagged]
daveguy 1y ago
I prefer the term trumpist douchery.
afavour 1y ago
...no it isn't? Whataboutism is when you redirect attention from issue #1 to unrelated issue #2 in an attempt to change the conversation topic: "forget that, look at this!" OP's comment was pointing out the similarities between issue #1 and issue #2. There's no dismissal.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The dismissal is implied. And this behavior is endemic in modern reporting and political conversation. Novel idea: what if we focus on the exact issue that was originally brought up? 'Someone else did it, or something like it, sometime, somewhere.' I'm past caring about that -- because it's used too frequently to distract from the current issue. A. Hegseth broke the law and shared classified information on a system that wasn't approved for it. B. Or, he unilaterally declassified operational details without informing anyone or going through a normal process. It can only be one of the two above options, because the facts aren't in question. Edit: But looks like National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be taking the fall for this: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    > The dismissal is implied. Is it? I'd think that somebody who took Hillary's hidden 3rd party communications seriously would take these seriously too. The bizarre behavior is insisting that what Clinton did was trivial, but that this is a disaster. Also this emphasis on security is backseat driving from a bunch of people who want to attack Iran. The real problem with them using third-party communications is that they avoid FOIA.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Can you try responding to what Hegseth did without mentioning anyone else? It's a simple ask.
- wang_li 1y ago
  Whataboutism is when you are trying to show a double standard because person A did a thing that you were upset about and person B did the same thing and you don't care. Asking why you care about a person doing a thing and didn't care when a different person did something different is not whataboutism.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
    I agree with the GP on the definition of whataboutism, and think that you have described something with a much older term: "pointing out the hypocrisy". They both share in common that rather than continuing to talk about just one thing, you are now talking about (at least) two. But whataboutism is a diversion tactic that tries to shift the attention from behavior/event A to behavior/event B; pointing out the hypocrisy notes the similarities between behaviors/events A and B and contrasts the response. Both can be deployed in similar situations, but the motivations for choosing one over the other are substantially different.
    - Chyzwar 1y ago
      OP did not state his motivation, leaving it for open interpretation.
      - TaurenHunter 1y ago
        You are responsible for your own interpretation/distortion.
  - CGMthrowaway 1y ago
    Is a double standard good or bad?
- Chyzwar 1y ago
  > The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Both Clintons private email server, Pete signal chats and Trump documents stash in Mar-a-lago are equally bad. Lack of consequences signal erosion of “Law and order” in the US. It seems that US is now not different from third rate countries where last minute exceptions, insider trading, open bribery, secret police(ICE) and targeted prosecution is a new norm.
  - comfysocks 1y ago
    I agree that all three are bad and shouldn’t be tolerated. However, Hegseth’s transgression was the worst in terms of severity by orders of magnitude. Details of an in-progress military operation and all.
    - Chyzwar 1y ago
      We do not know. We do not know what documents Trump had in Mar-a-lago, who had access to them, and what he shared with others. Furthermore, we do not know what was in Clintons emails and who read them. If anything, Hegseth’s is less damming, since we know the content of chat and participants. In both Clintons and Trump cases, the impact could be much bigger. The problem in all cases is lack of accountability.
      - afavour 1y ago
        > If anything, Hegseth’s is less damming, since we know the content of chat and participants That at least is surely not true. We know the contents because his attention to security was even less than the others we've heard about.
kacesensitive 1y ago
It's literally not whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you bring up something about person A, then the only argument against it is something relating to person B. For example, when you point out the call the president made to the secretary of state in Georgia begging him to "find" 11,780 votes. Then, without a great excuse, the other person brings up Biden's mental decline. Both true, both concerning, but the reply just being blatant and desperate misdirection.
FrustratedMonky 1y ago
Classic what about, whataboutism, whataboutism.

Classic whataboutism.

HPsquared 1y ago

There's a fine line between whataboutism and precedent.

inverted_flag 1y ago
I look forward to the FBI's thorough investigation of Hegseth then.
- Sabinus 1y ago
  And Hegseth answering questions before a House committee for 11 hours, like Clinton did.

TaurenHunter 1y ago

[flagged]

daveguy 1y ago

I prefer the term trumpist douchery.

afavour 1y ago

...no it isn't? Whataboutism is when you redirect attention from issue #1 to unrelated issue #2 in an attempt to change the conversation topic: "forget that, look at this!" OP's comment was pointing out the similarities between issue #1 and issue #2. There's no dismissal.

ethbr1 1y ago
The dismissal is implied. And this behavior is endemic in modern reporting and political conversation. Novel idea: what if we focus on the exact issue that was originally brought up? 'Someone else did it, or something like it, sometime, somewhere.' I'm past caring about that -- because it's used too frequently to distract from the current issue. A. Hegseth broke the law and shared classified information on a system that wasn't approved for it. B. Or, he unilaterally declassified operational details without informing anyone or going through a normal process. It can only be one of the two above options, because the facts aren't in question. Edit: But looks like National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be taking the fall for this: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > The dismissal is implied. Is it? I'd think that somebody who took Hillary's hidden 3rd party communications seriously would take these seriously too. The bizarre behavior is insisting that what Clinton did was trivial, but that this is a disaster. Also this emphasis on security is backseat driving from a bunch of people who want to attack Iran. The real problem with them using third-party communications is that they avoid FOIA.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Can you try responding to what Hegseth did without mentioning anyone else? It's a simple ask.
wang_li 1y ago
Whataboutism is when you are trying to show a double standard because person A did a thing that you were upset about and person B did the same thing and you don't care. Asking why you care about a person doing a thing and didn't care when a different person did something different is not whataboutism.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  I agree with the GP on the definition of whataboutism, and think that you have described something with a much older term: "pointing out the hypocrisy". They both share in common that rather than continuing to talk about just one thing, you are now talking about (at least) two. But whataboutism is a diversion tactic that tries to shift the attention from behavior/event A to behavior/event B; pointing out the hypocrisy notes the similarities between behaviors/events A and B and contrasts the response. Both can be deployed in similar situations, but the motivations for choosing one over the other are substantially different.
  - Chyzwar 1y ago
    OP did not state his motivation, leaving it for open interpretation.
    - TaurenHunter 1y ago
      You are responsible for your own interpretation/distortion.
- CGMthrowaway 1y ago
  Is a double standard good or bad?
Chyzwar 1y ago
> The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Both Clintons private email server, Pete signal chats and Trump documents stash in Mar-a-lago are equally bad. Lack of consequences signal erosion of “Law and order” in the US. It seems that US is now not different from third rate countries where last minute exceptions, insider trading, open bribery, secret police(ICE) and targeted prosecution is a new norm.
- comfysocks 1y ago
  I agree that all three are bad and shouldn’t be tolerated. However, Hegseth’s transgression was the worst in terms of severity by orders of magnitude. Details of an in-progress military operation and all.
  - Chyzwar 1y ago
    We do not know. We do not know what documents Trump had in Mar-a-lago, who had access to them, and what he shared with others. Furthermore, we do not know what was in Clintons emails and who read them. If anything, Hegseth’s is less damming, since we know the content of chat and participants. In both Clintons and Trump cases, the impact could be much bigger. The problem in all cases is lack of accountability.
    - afavour 1y ago
      > If anything, Hegseth’s is less damming, since we know the content of chat and participants That at least is surely not true. We know the contents because his attention to security was even less than the others we've heard about.

kacesensitive 1y ago

It's literally not whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you bring up something about person A, then the only argument against it is something relating to person B. For example, when you point out the call the president made to the secretary of state in Georgia begging him to "find" 11,780 votes. Then, without a great excuse, the other person brings up Biden's mental decline. Both true, both concerning, but the reply just being blatant and desperate misdirection.

FrustratedMonky 1y ago

Classic what about, whataboutism, whataboutism.