4 ms·

This feels like whataboutism. That line of argument isn’t new and is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives—do you have a more substantive point to add?

waynecochran 6mo ago
Or just simply pointing out the usual blind political hypocrisy ...
- customguy 6mo ago
  Implicit in that is the false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B. And even if that framing was accepted: okay, now we "talk about the other side", but then anything said could be countered with something about this side. It's not pointing out anything relevant, it's rather wiggling a laser pointer.
  - nailer 6mo ago
    > everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B. This is a strange thing to say about someone pointing out that the problem is widespread. It's not a false dichotomy: insider trading is endemic to congress. Also why would you write "false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B" when someone is replying to the most unhinged and extreme take: > > That line of argument... is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives If you want to talk about a false dichotomy, maybe someone engaging in ridiculous conspiracy theories about how criticising Democrats can only be of interest for proponents of the Russian regime would be a good place to start?
rvz 6mo ago
It is not. The OP just agreed that both Trump and Pelosi insider trades are unacceptable. Thus it is not "whataboutism". Both Trump and Pelosi and all of congress doing insider trading all shows the complete corruption in US politics in the open. It's just that one of them is better at hiding it.
nailer 6mo ago
> This feels like whataboutism. I mean Pelosi has a higher rate of success as a stock picker than Warren Buffet. > That line of argument isn’t new Why are points raised previously invalid? > and is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives I could write "pro-Kremlin narratives are associated with the Russiagate hoax" but that would be childish.
- zhoujing204 6mo ago
  [dead]

waynecochran 6mo ago

Or just simply pointing out the usual blind political hypocrisy ...

customguy 6mo ago
Implicit in that is the false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B. And even if that framing was accepted: okay, now we "talk about the other side", but then anything said could be countered with something about this side. It's not pointing out anything relevant, it's rather wiggling a laser pointer.
- nailer 6mo ago
  > everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B. This is a strange thing to say about someone pointing out that the problem is widespread. It's not a false dichotomy: insider trading is endemic to congress. Also why would you write "false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B" when someone is replying to the most unhinged and extreme take: > > That line of argument... is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives If you want to talk about a false dichotomy, maybe someone engaging in ridiculous conspiracy theories about how criticising Democrats can only be of interest for proponents of the Russian regime would be a good place to start?

rvz 6mo ago

It is not. The OP just agreed that both Trump and Pelosi insider trades are unacceptable. Thus it is not "whataboutism". Both Trump and Pelosi and all of congress doing insider trading all shows the complete corruption in US politics in the open. It's just that one of them is better at hiding it.

nailer 6mo ago

> This feels like whataboutism. I mean Pelosi has a higher rate of success as a stock picker than Warren Buffet. > That line of argument isn’t new Why are points raised previously invalid? > and is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives I could write "pro-Kremlin narratives are associated with the Russiagate hoax" but that would be childish.

zhoujing204 6mo ago
[dead]