3 ms·

You shouldn't trust either but also this is whataboutism.

• platinumrad 3mo ago
  There's nothing intrinsically wrong with "whataboutism" and it is in fact often illuminating.
  • pessimizer 3mo ago
    Especially because the original criticism is usually a stand-in for an overarching moral condemnation. "Whataboutism" was a US defense for the fact that it was an apartheid state while criticizing political and financial liberties in the Soviet Union. It also worked. The shame built up in the US so quickly that laws started being struck from the books. The US entered WWII with a segregated military, and by the time it marched into Korea, it was rapidly desegregating. The Soviet Union had successfully made its case that the US had no moral high ground, although it had not made its case for its specific set of limitations of financial and political liberties. "Whataboutism" is just ad hominem for dummies. But if the real argument is about who is the better man, or what is the better system, ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy. It's simply a change of subject.
• WithinReason 3mo ago
  No it's not. There is a difference between a comparison and whataboutism
• pessimizer 3mo ago
  No, it is not. Whataboutism is a specific term created (by Cold War propagandists) to refer to when the US criticizes the USSR about "X," and the Soviet Union replies by asking about "Y" in the US. It is not a term created to refer to when some American criticizes any of America's official enemies for "X," and someone else reminds you that America also does exactly "X."
  • jayd16 3mo ago
    > "Whataboutism" or "whataboutery" (as in, "but what about X?") refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism This is a counter accusation and not a defense, ergo, whataboutism.
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    • rq1 3mo ago
      I never understood how people referred to or understood “whataboutsim”. I personally understand it not as a diversion but as a critique of the moral higher ground implied by the first accusation. Said differently: keep your own house in order.
      • kortilla 3mo ago
        Because that’s not a logical defense and nobody cares about moral high grounds. That’s why it’s a logical fallacy. Actions can be judged on their own merits regardless of who presents the arguments.
        • rq1 3mo ago
          Hilarious. It is absolutely a logical défense: our societal order and its relative fairness don’t emerge from the void. Otherwise a victim defending himself is the same as the person assaulting? Perpetrator: you just stabbed me OMG! Victim: you were going to rape and kill me Perpetrator: sorry that’s just whataboutism and definitely not a logical defence. Your actions can be judged on their own merits, regardless of who presents the arguments.
          • deleted 3mo ago
            [deleted]