"Whataboutism" - the new cowardly sprint from being held to a standard

[forkup]

Nope she doesn't. Personal responsibility and all. Minnesota freedom fund decided whom to release they bear the responsibility for actions as a result.

That is a very shallow level of accountability you hold for Harris. So she can fling groups around all she wants, and if they do anything wrong she's at no harm, no foul? What me worry? No, I wouldn't hold that standard for Trump or Harris. If you're going to publicly support a group, you own what they do as their mission. And if you were misled, you have to speak out and apologize. If she had been a Republican, she'd have been front page news and damned. Since she's a Democrat and leftist, the media ignores it, and much of the country is blockaded from every knowing, which is clearly their intent.

Biden denounced it. I found several more statements of them doing the same. I think if you would think of it objectively you should realize that no statement whatsoever would have changed anything about what happened.

So Biden and Democrats are harmless to change anything? Um... I think that's passing the buck of responsibility.

Biden denounced the vague concept of violence, he didn't denounce violence that began at BLM protests in specific cities. But notice, he DID point out quite clearly the rioters at the Capitol building, and who they supported. Odd that he'd be so protectively vague when defending those "victim class" groups on his side while so offensively detailed yet all-encompassing when attacking his opponent..eh? It's almost as if he treats things differently based on who does it.. which is my point from the start, his lack of standards.

This is the reason I didn't go into any of the whataboutisms you were offering. You present but what about this I present my view on it, and this without reverting to a whataboutism myself. How are you supposed to be able to distill any standard if we can't even agree on what a specific example signifies?

I'm all about establishing, or at least having the conversation of establishing, parameters before getting into a topic.

I'm just going to respond to the first bit because it brings into focus again the premise of the OP.

My version of personal responsibility is shallow. It needs to be if I want it to be absolute. It's all different sides of the same coin.

I want you to look at how I for instance phrased what Trump's role was on January 6th. I steered away from claiming his words on January 6th where the reason he incited the violence. I didn't do that because I believe it didn't happen. I did it because that statement relies on my opinion. Instead I phrased it as the fact that he continued to push election fraud AFTER he exhausted his legal options. I don't even believe those challenges were made in good faith but I recognise the right to do so.

Of course, sometimes my opinion will take the upper hand. I'm human after all but I'm incredibly cautious about what I claim to be a fact most of the time. This is how you apply a standard to judge things.

That is again the reason why using a whataboutism as a standard is foolish. Because whataboutism rely on a subjective comparison of past events.

 

[j-mac]

I'm just going to respond to the first bit because it brings into focus again the premise of the OP.

My version of personal responsibility is shallow. It needs to be if I want it to be absolute. It's all different sides of the same coin.

I want you to look at how I for instance phrased what Trump's role was on January 6th. I steered away from claiming his words on January 6th where the reason he incited the violence. I didn't do that because I believe it didn't happen. I did it because that statement relies on my opinion. Instead I phrased it as the fact that he continued to push election fraud AFTER he exhausted his legal options. I don't even believe those challenges were made in good faith but I recognise the right to do so.

Of course, sometimes my opinion will take the upper hand. I'm human after all but I'm incredibly cautious about what I claim to be a fact most of the time. This is how you apply a standard to judge things.

That is again the reason why using a whataboutism as a standard is foolish. Because whataboutism rely on a subjective comparison of past events.

I agree with your last paragraph here, and it seems as though at least from what you're saying, you try to be even handed with your claims...I guess one could not really tell unless they read the entire body of your work in here to judge for themselves...

So, why is it do you think that members in here, most of the time, not all of the time mind you, but most of the time use the claim of "whataboutism" to avoid discussing a topic, or accepting comparisons when events on both sides of the political ideological isle are present? is it just plain laziness?

 

[forkup]

I agree with your last paragraph here, and it seems as though at least from what you're saying, you try to be even handed with your claims...I guess one could not really tell unless they read the entire body of your work in here to judge for themselves...

So, why is it do you think that members in here, most of the time, not all of the time mind you, but most of the time use the claim of "whataboutism" to avoid discussing a topic, or accepting comparisons when events on both sides of the political ideological isle are present? is it just plain laziness?

I had to reread a couple of times because the sentence structure is a bit weird. This is not really criticism. My writing is a bit dense at times myself. So, if I get it correctly you are asking why people accept whataboutisms as a valid argument? Please correct me if I get your premise wrong.

People accept is as an argument because quite often it's the only thing they have in order to avoid responsibility for themselves. It's a way to avoid looking at yourself or in this case your side.

On a personal note. I often engage these whataboutisms. Usually because it's used in conjunction with another fallacious argument. Namely the false equivalency. Not that it ever really works. Because even if I'm capable of pointing out in a rock-solid way that the situation is so dissimilar that it's completely mad to use it as a comparison the people I talk to, refuse to see it or pretend they don't.

It's why fallacious arguments in general are frustrating to me. They are the debate equivalency of cheating.

By the way thank you for trying to look at what I write in its entirety. This shows that you are at least willing to judge me honestly.

 

[j-mac]

I had to reread a couple of times because the sentence structure is a bit weird. This is not really criticism. My writing is a bit dense at times myself. So, if I get it correctly you are asking why people accept whataboutisms as a valid argument? Please correct me if I get your premise wrong.

People accept is as an argument because quite often it's the only thing they have in order to avoid responsibility for themselves. It's a way to avoid looking at yourself or in this case your side.

On a personal note. I often engage these whataboutisms. Usually because it's used in conjunction with another fallacious argument. Namely the false equivalency. Not that it ever really works. Because even if I'm capable of pointing out in a rock-solid way that the situation is so dissimilar that it's completely mad to use it as a comparison the people I talk to, refuse to see it or pretend they don't.

It's why fallacious arguments in general are frustrating to me. They are the debate equivalency of cheating.

By the way thank you for trying to look at what I write in its entirety. This shows that you are at least willing to judge me honestly.

I don’t disagree with you on this…See, I just think that comparison in political debate is common, after all, isn’t that what opposing sides use to tell their side of a disagreement, and if done civilly it can lead to a path of agreement, don’t you think?

But, to just dismiss what someone posts by using that term, I think is intellectually lazy, and shows the person to be generally dishonest in their argument…

 

[Catsnmeters]

I agree with your last paragraph here, and it seems as though at least from what you're saying, you try to be even handed with your claims...I guess one could not really tell unless they read the entire body of your work in here to judge for themselves...

So, why is it do you think that members in here, most of the time, not all of the time mind you, but most of the time use the claim of "whataboutism" to avoid discussing a topic, or accepting comparisons when events on both sides of the political ideological isle are present? is it just plain laziness?

It might have something to do with the forum rules...

• Off-topic posts may be edited, trashed, deleted, or moved to an appropriate forum as per administrator & moderator discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub forum.

Of course some direct comparisons can be made across common topics but certainly situations where both topics are exactly the same are few and far between.

Take comparing the Jan 6 insurrection and the "summer of love" for example.

One was sedition against the federal government by trying to stop the Constitutional duty of counting electoral votes.

The other was a riot based on anger over the unnecessary death of a black man.

Certainly neither are good things, over ten thousand people were arrested during BLM riots, but none were considered sedition. Comparing the two is a false equivalence.

 

[j-mac]

It might have something to do with the forum rules...

• Off-topic posts may be edited, trashed, deleted, or moved to an appropriate forum as per administrator & moderator discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub forum.

Of course some direct comparisons can be made across common topics but certainly situations where both topics are exactly the same are few and far between.

Take comparing the Jan 6 insurrection and the "summer of love" for example.

One was sedition against the federal government by trying to stop the Constitutional duty of counting electoral votes.

The other was a riot based on anger over the unnecessary death of a black man.

Certainly neither are good things, over ten thousand people were arrested during BLM riots, but none were considered sedition. Comparing the two is a false equivalence.

I’m not saying that the reasons for the riots are the same. I’m talking about the violent people on both incidents, regardless of their underlying motives….

Certainly federal buildings were attacked disrupting their normal course of operations….CHOP/CHAD…Police stations being set on fire…Police actually murdered…etc….

To dismiss this to the argument is just not intellectually honest.

 

[forkup]

I don’t disagree with you on this…See, I just think that comparison in political debate is common, after all, isn’t that what opposing sides use to tell their side of a disagreement, and if done civilly it can lead to a path of agreement, don’t you think?

But, to just dismiss what someone posts by using that term, I think is intellectually lazy, and shows the person to be generally dishonest in their argument…

Comparison is common in politics. In fact, it's the only rational way to pick a side in my opinion. Compare which parties position align closer to your own.

A whataboutism is not a real comparison though. It is a justification for your own behavior by pointing out the other side sucks too. An appeal to hypocrisy to be formal.

The first one isn't a fallacious argument. The second one is. The first one is about ideology, the second one is an excuse. A particularly bad excuse.

 

[forkup]

I’m not saying that the reasons for the riots are the same. I’m talking about the violent people on both incidents, regardless of their underlying motives….

Certainly federal buildings were attacked disrupting their normal course of operations….CHOP/CHAD…Police stations being set on fire…Police actually murdered…etc….

To dismiss this to the argument is just not intellectually honest.

It wouldn't be if you would discuss it on its own merit. The problem is that it comes up in the context of Jan 6th.

To paraphrase. " You can't criticize Jan 6th because your side (not true it was racial not ideologically driven) had the summer of love."

That's what makes it both a false equivalency and an appeal to hypocrisy.

 

[hadit]

Conservatives are the masters of the red herring fallacy, engaging in failed attempts to deflect when they can't defend the indefensible.

Prime example, ever since the campaign, not a single discussion of Quid Pro Joe's fumbles can be had without some idiot barging in bleating about TRUMP!. Oh, that wasn't conservatives though. Never mind.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I’m not saying that the reasons for the riots are the same. I’m talking about the violent people on both incidents, regardless of their underlying motives….

Certainly federal buildings were attacked disrupting their normal course of operations….CHOP/CHAD…Police stations being set on fire…Police actually murdered…etc….

The simple attack of a federal building itself is not sedition unless you are inferring that the last administration was weak in crime?

To dismiss this to the argument is just not intellectually honest.

So what would the point of the comparison be in this particular incident?

 

[j-mac]

Comparison is common in politics. In fact, it's the only rational way to pick a side in my opinion. Compare which parties position align closer to your own.

A whataboutism though is not a real comparison though. It is a justification for your own behavior by pointing out the other side sucks too. An appeal to hypocrisy to be formal.

The first one isn't a fallacious argument. The second one is.

I see what you are saying, however, I think most American's don't really make the distinction....Regardless of what the media feeds them, I think they look at both events and think to themselves, 'good lord both sides are out of their minds'....

 

[WEATHER53]

Feelings, wishes, what ifs, what about….
All Lib 101 operating platforms.

 

[j-mac]

The simple attack of a federal building itself is not sedition unless you are inferring that the last administration was weak in crime?


So what would the point of the comparison be in this particular incident?

Actually, the previous administration was hamstrung in many areas, largely because our Congress allowed themselves to be triggered by Trump's buffoonish behavior, rather than looking for what could benefit the American people....In spite of that from both sides, Trump was able to get quite a bit of good done, while he was in, and it was working....

 

[forkup]

I see what you are saying, however, I think most American's don't really make the distinction....Regardless of what the media feeds them, I think they look at both events and think to themselves, 'good lord both sides are out of their minds'....

Most Americans aren't aware... or even care whether or not an argument is fallacious. They only care if the argument supports their own biases. That's the entire standard of judging for 99 percent of the world, I think. Because everybody wants to be right. I personally value honesty over being right but I've found out it's an uncommon attitude.

That's the whole point that I've been trying to make throughout the OP (which I had to reread to be honest. It's an old one)

 

[j-mac]

Most Americans aren't aware... or even care whether or not an argument is fallacious. They only care if the argument supports their own biases. That's the entire standard of judging for 99 percent of the world, I think. Because everybody wants to be right. I personally value honesty over being right but I've found out it's an uncommon attitude.

That's the whole point that I've been trying to make throughout the OP (which I had to reread to be honest. It's an old one)

Well, I'm still not that jaded about the American people....But hey, good talk.

 

[forkup]

Well, I'm still not that jaded about the American people....But hey, good talk.

Same here

 

[easyt65]

You see the left calling any attempt to establish a standard as a "whataboutism".

Well, yes. "What about.." matters.

If your candidate and you denounce X openly, and you accuse the candidate you oppose of X while it's proven your own candidate has also done X...

You'd say me bringing up you and your candidate's hypocrisy is a "whataboutism"... which is just a defense mechanism to deflect and avoid your lack fo standards.

That's all is. If you're running around saying "Whataboutism".. you're an intellectual and philosophical coward..

Toughen up and set consistent, uniform standards for all people.

...the 'NEW' SPRINT....

Its been going on for a long time now.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Actually, the previous administration was hamstrung in many areas, largely because our Congress allowed themselves to be triggered by Trump's buffoonish behavior, rather than looking for what could benefit the American people....In spite of that from both sides, Trump was able to get quite a bit of good done, while he was in, and it was working....

I didn't really see it. A trail of broken promises is what I saw.

 

[j-mac]

I didn't really see it. A trail of broken promises is what I saw.

Well, we disagree....

1. Trump recently signed 3 bills to benefit Native people. One gives compensation to the Spokane tribe for loss of their lands in the mid-1900s, one funds Native language programs, and the third gives federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians in Montana.​

2. Trump finalized the creation of Space Force as our 6th Military branch.​

3. Trump signed a law to make cruelty to animals a federal felony so that animal abusers face tougher consequences. ​

4.) Violent crime has fallen every year he’s been in office after rising during the 2 years before he was elected.​

5. Trump signed a bill making CBD and Hemp legal.​

6. Trump’s EPA gave $100 million to fix the water infrastructure problem in Flint, Michigan.​

7. Under Trump’s leadership, in 2018 the U.S. surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest producer of crude oil.​

8. Trump signed a law ending the gag orders on Pharmacists that prevented them from sharing money-saving information.​

9. Trump signed the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (FOSTA), which includes the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” (SESTA) which both give law enforcement and victims new tools to fight sex trafficking.​

10. Trump signed a bill to require airports to provide spaces for breastfeeding Moms.​

And on and on.....

Opinion | A Fact-Checked List of Trump Accomplishments (Published 2020)

It’s been circulating on social media for months. Here’s what I found when I looked into these claims.

www.nytimes.com

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I don't ignore people even when they're extremists. To be honest, in my experience very few people on here aren't extremist or at the very least not dishonest. Doing so would cause me to only talk to myself mostly.
I will not give a comprehensive list it would take the form of a book to do so, just some highlights. For instance,
-comparing the protests and riots of the summer and the Democratic response to them to those in January. The Democrats didn't organize them, it wasn't for the benefit of Democrats, the Democrats didn't encourage them, the Democrats didn't lead them. The most you'll find is them confirming that there is a right to protest, peacefully. Riots were always condemned forcefully and without the least bit of ambiguity.

On January 6th there was a rally that was endorsed by Trump, plugged by Trump, for the benefit of Trump, lead by Trump, and when violence broke out it took him hours to stop to encourage them and when he did, it was so ambiguous that it is now used as evidence AGAINST him.

This is the current false equivalency.

-Trying to get the president of Ukraine to investigate the son of his political rival. The false equivalence that was being made was that the US uses its diplomatic power constantly to get stuff done of foreign powers. Of course, constantly skating past the fact that what they were trying to get done was nothing less than using diplomatic power to help the president PERSONALLY.

-Using "all politicians lie" as a justification for lying more than 30000 times in office. To the point that many people are perfectly willing to ignore everybody, INCLUDING friendly media and their own party on the word of Trump.

I can go on and on and be more comprehensive but you get my point I hope?

Well, I will again not give a comprehensive list but just give the highlights.

-Not just refusing to accept the election results after all legal options were exhausted but actively encouraging people to stop the certification of the elections.

-Refusing to adequately recognize and combat a deadly virus.

-Lying so much truth has become a matter of the eye of the beholder for many people.

-Using the position as president to enrich himself while STILL in office.

-Using the position as president to ACTIVELY interfere with ongoing investigations that have a bearing on HIMSELF (not completely unprecedented, although I don't think Nixon as a precedent helps you.)

-Going on camera and saying you believe Putin over your own intelligence agencies.

-Going outside normal diplomatic channels in order to get a US CITIZEN investigated by a foreign power. Mind you the US position is that they don't even recognize the right of the Court in Den Hague to prosecute an American citizen.

-Giving away the capability of US photo recon satellites away in a tweet.

-Etc. etc.


All of these things have been done and nobody on the right that I'm aware of called for "let's have some standards"

You still believe the “30,000 lies” thingy!
You can’t comprehend how ridiculous that number is?
Why do you think cnn, msnbc and the like turned off their lie counters when Polish *Joe became president? Here’s a hint….for the same reason they stopped reporting daily Covid death numbers immediately after Joe became president.