3 ms·
> In brief: this reduces to whataboutism (a form of the fallacy tu quoque); the fallacy that additional evil remedies the original evil; and presumes the validi
by roenxi 1y ago
> In brief: this reduces to whataboutism (a form of the fallacy tu quoque); the fallacy that additional evil remedies the original evil; and presumes the validity of the conclusion as a premise en route to justifying it.
That is a common and subtle error - tu quoque is a fallacy but whataboutism is typically logically valid.
The core of tu-quoque is asserting a claim's truth because of unrelated actions of some unrelated party. Doesn't make sense. For example, I might argue that drinking is bad for you while holding a glass of something - the claim may or may not be correct and observing that I am drinking doesn't influence the truth of it because my behaviour doesn't control what is healthy in the abstract.
Politics is about picking one of a several available options, where "I compared the options and picked the best one based on their relative behaviour" is fundamentally reasonable. You can't choose who/what to vote for without making comparisons and engaging in whataboutisms. It is a comparative exercise. Most voters can't just vote for what they think is best in the abstract because the politicians are often homogeneous in their policy positions leaving little room to make real choices (it is a bit sad watching how consistently the US public tries to vote for the anti-war candidate and how dedicated the political class is to not getting the message).
Claiming that Trumps actions are, in abstract, correct because of poor behaviour by others is a fallacy. Claiming they are routine and therefore tolerable because there isn't an alternative is a different claim and logically coherent.
It's actually a pretty good argument too, it is a good showcase of how unprincipled most people are that they only seem to get worked up about, eg, politicians lying when it is Trump doing it. It has always been a baffling line of attack that people accuse Trump of being a liar like they expect it to be a problem. You'd almost think they had a room full of honest and principled politicians somewhere that were about to stand for election but then it turns out they're about to vote for the usual suspects in mainstream politics. Maybe they don't watch political debates for fun, I dunno. There is a great case for voting 3rd party in the US.
- treetalker 1y agoFair enough regarding the subtleties of tu quoque, and thank you for the insight. Whataboutism provides no support, or extremely weak support, to justify the pardon at issue. Nor does the rest: first, the "no other alternative" injects something entirely new into the discussion; and second, it does not justify the pardon, but attempts to justify either the person effecting the pardon or, more expressly, voting for that person. On a more-pedestrian level, all that sounds like a shrug while saying "Trump gonna Trump!"
- roenxi 1y agoPresident going to president. I'd advise most people save their outrage for when Trump pardons his extended family at the end of his term a la Biden. I expect it'll be an ongoing feature of presidential politics and that seems like a bigger problem with corrupt pardons than this excessive ballroom. There should be an expectation that presidents - and their families - are not above the law. > Nor does the rest: first, the "no other alternative" injects something entirely new into the discussion I'm engaging in whataboutisms. Talking about the alternatives is very much already in the conversation. Trump isn't a president because everyone thinks Trump is the best man in the US for the job, it is because the alternative was the Biden/Harris administration or some generic Republican failure. And despite the quality of the opposition it still wasn't a sure win for him, which says a lot about how people are viewing the situation.