Probably another one of those "she should have realized the consequences of her actions" situations. Well, she did. She realized she is working for craven morons and is attempting to save lives.
Why would someone meet a plane of potential corona victims without protective gear?
Obama aggressively targeted whistleblowers, too. Whataboutitsm--it is how the world works.
What Obama did was wrong there. What you are doing is whataboutism.
The main point you seem to be purposefully overlooking, is that it's a bit late to do anything about Obama's treatment of whistleblowers.
Let's go back in time to the 1890s to illustrate this point.
Before Jack the Ripper killed a bunch of people there were other murderers.
Tom killed a guy a hundred years before Jack the Ripper.
When Jack goes on his killing spree he doesn't get a get out of jail free card because Tom got away with it. "Oh so Jack did it but Tom did too" isn't helpful. At all.
Focus on today. Tom's dead. His term is over. He's not coming back. Jack is the one to worry about and do something about.
Trump does x, and people complain. When it is pointed out that Obama (or whomever) did exactly the same thing his defenders claim "whataboutism", thus excusing Obama's actions. If something is wrong then it is wrong regardless of who does it; pointing out that someone else also did it is always permissible. In other words, if Obama did it then it was okay but if Trump does it then it is not. Typical "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking.
No - that’s actually just whatsboutism. It works in reverse too. If you mention things Obama did, and someone pivots to Trump... it’s whataboutism.
*shrug* Thems-the-breaks. Sorry if you don’t like it. It’s not excusing anyone’s actions.
Whataboutism is so dearly misunderstood these days.
Whataboutism is not referencing another person or similar event.
It's about appealing to hypocrisy to invalidate an argument when the hypocrisy is irrelevant to the argument.
If you say smoking is bad, and I point out that you smoke so you clearly don't think it's so bad, that's whataboutism.
If you say someone is better than someone else because someone else did X, and I point out that both parties are equally guilty of X, that's not whataboutism.
Thems the breaks. Sorry if you don't like it.
When used incorrectly, accusations of whataboutism essentially embody the contradictions they claim to be highlighting.
"Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy."
When used incorrectly, accusations of whataboutism essentially embody the contradictions they claim to be highlighting.
"Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy."
Trump does x, and people complain. When it is pointed out that Obama (or whomever) did exactly the same thing his defenders claim "whataboutism", thus excusing Obama's actions. If something is wrong then it is wrong regardless of who does it; pointing out that someone else also did it is always permissible. In other words, if Obama did it then it was okay but if Trump does it then it is not. Typical "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking.
No - that’s actually just whatsboutism. It works in reverse too. If you mention things Obama did, and someone pivots to Trump... it’s whataboutism.
*shrug* Thems-the-breaks. Sorry if you don’t like it. It’s not excusing anyone’s actions.
Whataboutism is so dearly misunderstood these days.
Whataboutism is not referencing another person or similar event.
It's about appealing to hypocrisy to invalidate an argument when the hypocrisy is irrelevant to the argument.
If you say smoking is bad, and I point out that you smoke so you clearly don't think it's so bad, that's whataboutism.
If you say someone is better than someone else because someone else did X, and I point out that both parties are equally guilty of X, that's not whataboutism.
Thems the breaks. Sorry if you don't like it.
Lesigh. You don’t know what it is. Sorry. You don’t.
Whataboutism is an logical fallacy where you attempt to excuse or avoid an argument by pointing to another argument rather than contending with the original argument itself.
What you described was just hypocrisy - which is also bad, but *isnt* necessarily whataboutism.
Trump does x, and people complain. When it is pointed out that Obama (or whomever) did exactly the same thing his defenders claim "whataboutism", thus excusing Obama's actions. If something is wrong then it is wrong regardless of who does it; pointing out that someone else also did it is always permissible. In other words, if Obama did it then it was okay but if Trump does it then it is not. Typical "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking.
No - that’s actually just whatsboutism. It works in reverse too. If you mention things Obama did, and someone pivots to Trump... it’s whataboutism.
*shrug* Thems-the-breaks. Sorry if you don’t like it. It’s not excusing anyone’s actions.
Whataboutism is so dearly misunderstood these days.
Whataboutism is not referencing another person or similar event.
It's about appealing to hypocrisy to invalidate an argument when the hypocrisy is irrelevant to the argument.
If you say smoking is bad, and I point out that you smoke so you clearly don't think it's so bad, that's whataboutism.
If you say someone is better than someone else because someone else did X, and I point out that both parties are equally guilty of X, that's not whataboutism.
Thems the breaks. Sorry if you don't like it.
Lesigh. You don’t know what it is. Sorry. You don’t.
Whataboutism is an logical fallacy where you attempt to excuse or avoid an argument by pointing to another argument rather than contending with the argument itself.
What you described was just hypocrisy - which is also bad, but *isnt* necessarily whataboutism.
You basically said the exact same thing I did, just with less clarity.
You don't need to neccessarily point to another argument, you point to anything that charges another with hypocrisy. When this hypocrisy is irrelevant to the argument, it is whataboutism. It's a deflection tactic. When it is relevant, it is not whataboutism but a valid line of reasoning.
It's not complicated, and it gets perpetually misused across this forum to deflect valid criticisms.
The example I gave was textbook whataboutism. Textbook as in it was the exact example I was given in formal logic courses. You don't disprove the negative effects of smoking by pointing out that the speaker is a smoker.
The only reason we are using "whataboutism" instead of "tu quoque" is because of a series of 2016/2017 articles that pushed the use of that phrase due to it's russian-related origins. But I digress.
Trump does x, and people complain. When it is pointed out that Obama (or whomever) did exactly the same thing his defenders claim "whataboutism", thus excusing Obama's actions.
Semantics, but it is not the exact same thing. It maybe the same tactic, but it is not the same thing.
I doubt anyone can show me where Obama has used the excuse that the economy isn’t sufficient enough and refused to give a congressional approved pay raise to federal workers while at the same time saying the economy is the best it ever is.
Exactly, isn’t the word I would use. It isn’t exact.
As I said, you can say he used the same tactic, then dive deeper into how the tactic was used and then discuss that (which I did), “but you can’t just say Obama did it too end of story move along folks, where was your outrage then huh huh huh.”
The only reason we are using "whataboutism" instead of "tu quoque" is because of a series of 2016/2017 articles that pushed the use of that phrase due to it's russian-related origins. But I digress.
That's not the reason I use the term. You see people literally say "Sure x, but whatabout y"
Trump officials (such as Kellyanne), Trump himself and even posters her frequently use those exact words "what about __ " (Obama or whatever) instead of addressing the current thing.
Example:.
S) Trump's putting kids in cages
R) Obama made the cages and put them there first, what about that?
S) He build them for unaccompanied children, the family separation policy is entirely Trump's design.
R) What about Obama's tan suit. Obama (totally irrelevant point instead of admitting that the crisis is Trump's fault)...
Trump does x, and people complain. When it is pointed out that Obama (or whomever) did exactly the same thing his defenders claim "whataboutism", thus excusing Obama's actions. If something is wrong then it is wrong regardless of who does it; pointing out that someone else also did it is always permissible. In other words, if Obama did it then it was okay but if Trump does it then it is not. Typical "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking.
No - that’s actually just whatsboutism. It works in reverse too. If you mention things Obama did, and someone pivots to Trump... it’s whataboutism.
*shrug* Thems-the-breaks. Sorry if you don’t like it. It’s not excusing anyone’s actions.
Whataboutism is so dearly misunderstood these days.
Whataboutism is not referencing another person or similar event.
It's about appealing to hypocrisy to invalidate an argument when the hypocrisy is irrelevant to the argument.
If you say smoking is bad, and I point out that you smoke so you clearly don't think it's so bad, that's whataboutism.
If you say someone is better than someone else because someone else did X, and I point out that both parties are equally guilty of X, that's not whataboutism.
Thems the breaks. Sorry if you don't like it.
Lesigh. You don’t know what it is. Sorry. You don’t.
Whataboutism is an logical fallacy where you attempt to excuse or avoid an argument by pointing to another argument rather than contending with the argument itself.
What you described was just hypocrisy - which is also bad, but *isnt* necessarily whataboutism.
You basically said the exact same thing I did, just with less clarity.
You don't need to neccessarily point to another argument, you point to anything that charges another with hypocrisy. When this hypocrisy is irrelevant to the argument, it is whataboutism. It's a deflection tactic. When it is relevant, it is not whataboutism but a valid line of reasoning.
It's not complicated, and it gets perpetually misused across this forum to deflect valid criticisms.
The example I gave was textbook whataboutism. Textbook as in it was the exact example I was given in formal logic courses. You don't disprove the negative effects of smoking by pointing out that the speaker is a smoker.
Interesting - as my reasoning on the issue hasnt changed. So your explanation did, or you misunderstood.
I dont believe you were clear at all, as there is a massive difference between citing additional examples of evidence to further a discussion or an argument, and deflecting.
Example: If in a discussion about Trump's actions towards whistleblowers, someone attempts to refute or deflect the argument by condemning Obama's treatment of whistleblowers.
Example where it's not whataboutism: If someone cites Obama's treatment of whistlblowing as being a long trend of executive overreach on the subject of whistleblowing. It adds context, but isnt used to deflect.
Please note that in every situation in which I have tried to define whatboutism - I have very specifically keyed on the nature of the argument as an attempt to deflect or change the topic of the argument.
So no. I stand by exactly my interpretation. If we're talking about the same thing, then I dont understand why you challenged me.
Additional thought: Citing some random professor isnt persuasive(to me). Doubly so when done by someone who tends to be skeptical of academia.
Thirdly - I've been calling it whataboutism for as long as I can remember. So I dont really know or care when other people started talking about it.
Finally - Was at work, and on my phone. Sorry if I didnt write more paragraphs to try to be clearer for you. I'll be sure to keep that in mind moving forward.
but you can’t just say Obama did it too end of story move along folks, where was your outrage then huh huh huh.”
No, I *can* say that if I choose to do so. The subsequent follow-up comments, should any occur, are the choices of the individual posters making them.
It says a lot that Obama has not yet endorsed Biden, but perhaps he is waiting to see what happens after Super Tuesday. He would not want to back a loser--and Biden is not going to be the big winner next week.
Trump does x, and people complain. When it is pointed out that Obama (or whomever) did exactly the same thing his defenders claim "whataboutism", thus excusing Obama's actions.
Semantics, but it is not the exact same thing. It maybe the same tactic, but it is not the same thing.
I doubt anyone can show me where Obama has used the excuse that the economy isn’t sufficient enough and refused to give a congressional approved pay raise to federal workers while at the same time saying the economy is the best it ever is.
Exactly, isn’t the word I would use. It isn’t exact.
As I said, you can say he used the same tactic, then dive deeper into how the tactic was used and then discuss that (which I did), “but you can’t just say Obama did it too end of story move along folks, where was your outrage then huh huh huh.”
Things don't necessarily need to be the exact same to be comparable, just to meet all the points of contention. If you object to something for x, y, and z reasons, and a comparable example hits all 3, the ways they differ matter little unless it relates to x y or z. But I get what you're saying.
This is how claims of whataboutism, or any fallacy, should be treated, by going into the details, not naming a fallacy and moving on as if you have proven it to be so.
In general, it's also really important to understand why you object to what you do, beyond dislike of the person making the decisions. If you dislike deportations, for example, what is it about it that you dislike? What is the moral principle being violated? If you have a clear answer to this it's a lot easier to be consistent across a wide variety of cases
Additional thought: Citing some random professor isnt persuasive(to me). Doubly so when done by someone who tends to be skeptical of academia.
To make this statement while discussing fallacies, I thought that was rich. Anyway, he makes an entirely valid observation. Those who throw around this term loosely, more often than not, simply want less attention drawn to certain subjects and more attention drawn to others without justification.
Anyway, when you said "Whataboutism is a logical fallacy where you attempt to excuse or avoid an argument by pointing to another argument rather than contending with the argument itself." You were basically right, but it was vague and missing important context.
For example, let's use yours:
"Example: If in a discussion about Trump's actions towards whistleblowers, someone attempts to refute or deflect the argument by condemning Obama's treatment of whistleblowers."
It depends on what the claim about Trump is. Even if the claim is simply that Trump is not good to whistleblowers, and that's all, there are still valid reasons to use the behavior of others.
For example, you could make the argument that Trump is better than usual for Presidents, which represents an improvement, and use other presidents as evidence. This still concedes the truth of the argument about Trump but provides context. I'm not saying this is a correct, just laying out cases where the use of other examples is valid.
It is becomes whataboutism when one tries to deflect or disprove the notion that Trumps behavior is unethical in itself by using someone else.
Of course, this all fits into your definition, yet I'm not quite sure you would agree with what I'm saying.
Most claims in this group go much further, oftentimes Trump is seen as uniquely unethical, which allows a much greater range of valid criticisms using other people as examples.
In general, it's also really important to understand why you object to what you do, beyond dislike of the person making the decisions. If you dislike deportations, for example, what is it about it that you dislike? What is the moral principle being violated? If you have a clear answer to this it's a lot easier to be consistent across a wide variety of cases
Well personally, I am not against deportation. I would be against some tactics that ICE have used such as detaining or even confronting actual citizens about being here illegally. That IMO is a huge no-no. I am also against calling legitimate asylum seekers illegal immigrants. I mentioned in the past how the U.S. Canada border was seeing a string of asylum seekers crossing illegally to Canada (because of the first safe port loophole, if they were fleeing the US, they couldn't cross at an actual port of entry) and putting a strain on our system that university dorm rooms in Toronto were filling up to house them all and the army (hey look at that) setting up temporary camps. The difference is that Canada provided the resources to process them all and gave them either a quick yes, or a quick ticket home. It's perceived the U.S. does not provide the resources needed to do the same thing at their southern border.
I also do buy into the argument that it makes other law enforcement jobs harder because their is the lack of trust and their resources are already stretched thin to not have to do the feds job as well. I personally think it is a choice that the community should make by electing officials who are either for or against the practise, but no one should criticize (or punish, I think one could still criticize) a city for going either way.
DACAs however are unique. The United States had not been enforcing legal immigration for so long that people have lived 20 years here and have been culturally assimilated that sending them back now would be a culture shock. These people, in my opinion, should have a chance (I won't say right) to obtain citizenship. They shouldn't be punished for either their parents crimes, or for the government's lack of enforcement when they were younger. I think DACA laid it out reasonably well and wit stricter enforcement currently (at the time and now), this shouldn't be a problem 20 years from now.
But illegal immigration is a problem for the US because companies still hire these people to work for them. This issue should be addressed first with stricter punishments for hiring illegals (IMO including jail time for knowningly hiring them or keeping them employed once it is known they are here illegally). Take away a key benefit for coming here and numbers should dwindle (which I believe it has been).
Additional thought: Citing some random professor isnt persuasive(to me). Doubly so when done by someone who tends to be skeptical of academia.
To make this statement while discussing fallacies, I thought that was rich. Anyway, he makes an entirely valid observation. Those who throw around this term loosely, more often than not, simply want less attention drawn to certain subjects and more attention drawn to others without justification.
Anyway, when you said "Whataboutism is a logical fallacy where you attempt to excuse or avoid an argument by pointing to another argument rather than contending with the argument itself." You were basically right, but it was vague and missing important context.
For example, let's use yours:
"Example: If in a discussion about Trump's actions towards whistleblowers, someone attempts to refute or deflect the argument by condemning Obama's treatment of whistleblowers."
It depends on what the claim about Trump is. Even if the claim is simply that Trump is not good to whistleblowers, and that's all, there are still valid reasons to use the behavior of others.
For example, you could make the argument that Trump is better than usual for Presidents, which represents an improvement, and use other presidents as evidence. This still concedes the truth of the argument about Trump but provides context. I'm not saying this is a correct, just laying out cases where the use of other examples is valid.
It is becomes whataboutism when one tries to deflect or disprove the notion that Trumps behavior is unethical in itself by using someone else.
Of course, this all fits into your definition, yet I'm not quite sure you would agree with what I'm saying.
Most claims in this group go much further, oftentimes Trump is seen as uniquely unethical, which allows a much greater range of valid criticisms using other people as examples.
I can make broad generalizations too: Those who dislike the use in citing logical fallacies often do so because they're more prone to commit them. Whether true or not, it's useless.
Beyond that, I dont even know what you're trying to argue. You began with a blanket statement of "Whataboutism is so dearly misunderstood these days." after quoting me, and now I'm "basically right, but it was vague and missing important context. "
In your examples, if it's not a refutation or deflection, then I said it isnt whataboutism. I think we're essentially at the point of semantics in deciding what constitutes a refutation of the same central argument. I'm not interested in that debate.
In general, it's also really important to understand why you object to what you do, beyond dislike of the person making the decisions. If you dislike deportations, for example, what is it about it that you dislike? What is the moral principle being violated? If you have a clear answer to this it's a lot easier to be consistent across a wide variety of cases
Well personally, I am not against deportation. I would be against some tactics that ICE have used such as detaining or even confronting actual citizens about being here illegally. That IMO is a huge no-no. I am also against calling legitimate asylum seekers illegal immigrants. I mentioned in the past how the U.S. Canada border was seeing a string of asylum seekers crossing illegally to Canada (because of the first safe port loophole, if they were fleeing the US, they couldn't cross at an actual port of entry) and putting a strain on our system that university dorm rooms in Toronto were filling up to house them all and the army (hey look at that) setting up temporary camps. The difference is that Canada provided the resources to process them all and gave them either a quick yes, or a quick ticket home. It's perceived the U.S. does not provide the resources needed to do the same thing at their southern border.
I also do buy into the argument that it makes other law enforcement jobs harder because their is the lack of trust and their resources are already stretched thin to not have to do the feds job as well. I personally think it is a choice that the community should make by electing officials who are either for or against the practise, but no one should criticize (or punish, I think one could still criticize) a city for going either way.
DACAs however are unique. The United States had not been enforcing legal immigration for so long that people have lived 20 years here and have been culturally assimilated that sending them back now would be a culture shock. These people, in my opinion, should have a chance (I won't say right) to obtain citizenship. They shouldn't be punished for either their parents crimes, or for the government's lack of enforcement when they were younger. I think DACA laid it out reasonably well and wit stricter enforcement currently (at the time and now), this shouldn't be a problem 20 years from now.
But illegal immigration is a problem for the US because companies still hire these people to work for them. This issue should be addressed first with stricter punishments for hiring illegals (IMO including jail time for knowningly hiring them or keeping them employed once it is known they are here illegally). Take away a key benefit for coming here and numbers should dwindle (which I believe it has been).
Been 8 months since the raid on the Mississippi poultry plant. Just googled it again to check in. Absolutely no news about charges for management or executives.
The Coronavirus response team is on it. On the pandemic? No. But they are taking charge of the war on information. Their war on truth.
This is the absolutely the worst way to respond to a pandemic. Putting a narrow minded politician, who only cares about the political impact of the disease, in charge of the safety of the country.
A pair of stories broke late Thursday afternoon concerning a Health and Human Services (HHS) whistleblower with a fatal series of charges that, if true, means the Coronavirus outbreak in the United States was caused by the ineptitude of the Trump administration.
It is ineptitude by design, they gutted the CDC and Pandemic Response Infrastructure. Just like they put criminals in charge of regulations and a profiteer in charge of education.
First reported on as an exclusive by The Washington Post–and quickly followed up on by The New York Times–both stories note that an HHS whistleblower filed an official complaint with the Office of the Special Counsel after alleging that she was retaliated against for voicing concerns. The whistleblower, who is seeking protection, is reportedly an award-winning expert in her field with decades of relevant experience with impeccable performance ratings.
___
The complaints being made by that whistleblower-expert:
>(1) U.S. workers were sent to the epicenter of the Coronavirus outbreak without proper training or protective gear;
>(2) those same employees were not tested for the Coronavirus;
>(3) many of those employees returned to the U.S. on a commercial flight;
>(4) after raising concerns about the wisdom of 1-3, she was allegedly reassigned and faced termination for speaking up through the chain-of-command.
These are not serious people. They don't take governing seriously, and when they do, it's only to marshall it's powers to deliver a message to shift blame. We've come a long way from "the buck stops here".
The Trumpian response to crisis is completely self-centered, entirely focused on making Trump look good rather than protecting America.
If the facts don’t make Trump look good, he and his allies attack the messengers, blaming the news media and the Democrats — while trying to prevent scientists from keeping us informed. And in choosing people to deal with a real crisis, Trump prizes loyalty rather than competence.
Maybe Trump — and America — will be lucky, and this won’t be as bad as it might be. But anyone feeling confident right now isn’t paying attention.
For what it’s worth similar criticisms are being made of Abe’s regime in Japan. Many of the personnel who oversaw the quarantine of the Diamond Princess have not been tested, and whistleblowers have been discouraged from coming forward. This article argues that covid-19 may give some regimes license to curtail civil liberties:
This is the absolutely the worst way to respond to a pandemic. Putting a narrow minded politician, who only cares about the political impact of the disease, in charge of the safety of the country.
This would not make us significantly different than many other counties.
This was a viral outbreak, though--it was never up to Trump as to whether or not it would show up here but he does bear responsibility for the response. The topic has already become so politicized, though, that any news story about cannot be taken at face value. Maybe there are 33 cases of people testing positive in California and they are simply reporting the numbers as they exist, or maybe there are not and they are trying to use the issue to drive down support for Trump.
*************
The New York Times interviewed 93 Democrat superdelegates and almost all of them stated quite plainly that if Sanders does not have a majority going into the national convention in Milwaukee that they will *not* vote for him on second or subsequent ballots. In other words, Sanders *has* to deliver with a majority or the convention will be brokered and he won't get the nomination.
CNN's Electoral College map, based on current numbers, gives Trump a modest lead over Sanders at 260 to 248 with the toss-up States of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania deciding the election. Trump would have to win one of the two but Sanders would have to win both.
The only reason California is one of the only places showing cases right now is because they are one of the only states that is actually testing for it AT ALL. And they don't even have a fraction of enough kits. The CDC doesn't have them. So maybe the "political" angle is that the Administration thinks if you can't officially "diagnosis" it, then it doesn't exist. Biology doesn't care about Trump and Pence's bullshit however.
He thinks he can will this away through tweets like everything else. Trump's own favorite metric, the stock market, would beg to differ. He's been in a rage about it for 5 days in a row, and it hasn't mattered an ounce. He tied himself at the hip with it, claiming SOLE credit for it's highs. Even if what is going on now is mostly a reaction to international markets and probably completely out of his hands, it doesn't matter. You don't get to just throw it out as a barometer of your success the minute things take a turn. He wanted to be judged by the markets. So he has to eat what happens to them.
In Trump's defense, though, the down markets are tied specifically to concerns about corona and not policies he set. As I noted, cautious investors will wait another day or two and then start buying. Of course, cautious investors are also long-term investors--even with the lastest drops if you have been in the market for 1 year you will be down only about 2.2% and if you have been in the market for 3 years then you are selling today and realizing 20.8% growth (at 5 years you have had 39.7% growth). The market was topping out with too much pressure, anyway, and needed to blow off some steam.
The other problem California has, which many other places don't, is the high number of homeless people whom cities are allowing to defecate on public sidewalks (note: they "allow" it by doing nothing about it). One homeless person who contracts corona, regardless of whether or not they have symptoms or become sick, can put a lot of people at risk.
I don't buy Corona because it is cheap, watery beer. Gross. Lighter-color beer can still have a rich body and a crisp taste but I prefer darker brews or stouts.
Comments
Probably another one of those "she should have realized the consequences of her actions" situations. Well, she did. She realized she is working for craven morons and is attempting to save lives.
Obama aggressively targeted whistleblowers, too. Whataboutitsm--it is how the world works.
Her bosses: "Shut your mouth or you're fired".
Holy christ.
What Obama did was wrong there. What you are doing is whataboutism.
The main point you seem to be purposefully overlooking, is that it's a bit late to do anything about Obama's treatment of whistleblowers.
Let's go back in time to the 1890s to illustrate this point.
Before Jack the Ripper killed a bunch of people there were other murderers.
Tom killed a guy a hundred years before Jack the Ripper.
When Jack goes on his killing spree he doesn't get a get out of jail free card because Tom got away with it. "Oh so Jack did it but Tom did too" isn't helpful. At all.
Focus on today. Tom's dead. His term is over. He's not coming back. Jack is the one to worry about and do something about.
Whataboutism is so dearly misunderstood these days.
Whataboutism is not referencing another person or similar event.
It's about appealing to hypocrisy to invalidate an argument when the hypocrisy is irrelevant to the argument.
If you say smoking is bad, and I point out that you smoke so you clearly don't think it's so bad, that's whataboutism.
If you say someone is better than someone else because someone else did X, and I point out that both parties are equally guilty of X, that's not whataboutism.
Thems the breaks. Sorry if you don't like it.
When used incorrectly, accusations of whataboutism essentially embody the contradictions they claim to be highlighting.
"Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy."
I already live with a lot of things I don't like.
Lesigh. You don’t know what it is. Sorry. You don’t.
Whataboutism is an logical fallacy where you attempt to excuse or avoid an argument by pointing to another argument rather than contending with the original argument itself.
What you described was just hypocrisy - which is also bad, but *isnt* necessarily whataboutism.
You basically said the exact same thing I did, just with less clarity.
You don't need to neccessarily point to another argument, you point to anything that charges another with hypocrisy. When this hypocrisy is irrelevant to the argument, it is whataboutism. It's a deflection tactic. When it is relevant, it is not whataboutism but a valid line of reasoning.
It's not complicated, and it gets perpetually misused across this forum to deflect valid criticisms.
The example I gave was textbook whataboutism. Textbook as in it was the exact example I was given in formal logic courses. You don't disprove the negative effects of smoking by pointing out that the speaker is a smoker.
Semantics, but it is not the exact same thing. It maybe the same tactic, but it is not the same thing.
I doubt anyone can show me where Obama has used the excuse that the economy isn’t sufficient enough and refused to give a congressional approved pay raise to federal workers while at the same time saying the economy is the best it ever is.
Exactly, isn’t the word I would use. It isn’t exact.
As I said, you can say he used the same tactic, then dive deeper into how the tactic was used and then discuss that (which I did), “but you can’t just say Obama did it too end of story move along folks, where was your outrage then huh huh huh.”
That's not the reason I use the term. You see people literally say "Sure x, but whatabout y"
Trump officials (such as Kellyanne), Trump himself and even posters her frequently use those exact words "what about __ " (Obama or whatever) instead of addressing the current thing.
Example:.
S) Trump's putting kids in cages
R) Obama made the cages and put them there first, what about that?
S) He build them for unaccompanied children, the family separation policy is entirely Trump's design.
R) What about Obama's tan suit. Obama (totally irrelevant point instead of admitting that the crisis is Trump's fault)...
Interesting - as my reasoning on the issue hasnt changed. So your explanation did, or you misunderstood.
I dont believe you were clear at all, as there is a massive difference between citing additional examples of evidence to further a discussion or an argument, and deflecting.
Example: If in a discussion about Trump's actions towards whistleblowers, someone attempts to refute or deflect the argument by condemning Obama's treatment of whistleblowers.
Example where it's not whataboutism: If someone cites Obama's treatment of whistlblowing as being a long trend of executive overreach on the subject of whistleblowing. It adds context, but isnt used to deflect.
Please note that in every situation in which I have tried to define whatboutism - I have very specifically keyed on the nature of the argument as an attempt to deflect or change the topic of the argument.
So no. I stand by exactly my interpretation. If we're talking about the same thing, then I dont understand why you challenged me.
Additional thought: Citing some random professor isnt persuasive(to me). Doubly so when done by someone who tends to be skeptical of academia.
Thirdly - I've been calling it whataboutism for as long as I can remember. So I dont really know or care when other people started talking about it.
Finally - Was at work, and on my phone. Sorry if I didnt write more paragraphs to try to be clearer for you. I'll be sure to keep that in mind moving forward.
No, I *can* say that if I choose to do so. The subsequent follow-up comments, should any occur, are the choices of the individual posters making them.
It says a lot that Obama has not yet endorsed Biden, but perhaps he is waiting to see what happens after Super Tuesday. He would not want to back a loser--and Biden is not going to be the big winner next week.
Things don't necessarily need to be the exact same to be comparable, just to meet all the points of contention. If you object to something for x, y, and z reasons, and a comparable example hits all 3, the ways they differ matter little unless it relates to x y or z. But I get what you're saying.
This is how claims of whataboutism, or any fallacy, should be treated, by going into the details, not naming a fallacy and moving on as if you have proven it to be so.
In general, it's also really important to understand why you object to what you do, beyond dislike of the person making the decisions. If you dislike deportations, for example, what is it about it that you dislike? What is the moral principle being violated? If you have a clear answer to this it's a lot easier to be consistent across a wide variety of cases
To make this statement while discussing fallacies, I thought that was rich. Anyway, he makes an entirely valid observation. Those who throw around this term loosely, more often than not, simply want less attention drawn to certain subjects and more attention drawn to others without justification.
Anyway, when you said "Whataboutism is a logical fallacy where you attempt to excuse or avoid an argument by pointing to another argument rather than contending with the argument itself." You were basically right, but it was vague and missing important context.
For example, let's use yours:
"Example: If in a discussion about Trump's actions towards whistleblowers, someone attempts to refute or deflect the argument by condemning Obama's treatment of whistleblowers."
It depends on what the claim about Trump is. Even if the claim is simply that Trump is not good to whistleblowers, and that's all, there are still valid reasons to use the behavior of others.
For example, you could make the argument that Trump is better than usual for Presidents, which represents an improvement, and use other presidents as evidence. This still concedes the truth of the argument about Trump but provides context. I'm not saying this is a correct, just laying out cases where the use of other examples is valid.
It is becomes whataboutism when one tries to deflect or disprove the notion that Trumps behavior is unethical in itself by using someone else.
Of course, this all fits into your definition, yet I'm not quite sure you would agree with what I'm saying.
Most claims in this group go much further, oftentimes Trump is seen as uniquely unethical, which allows a much greater range of valid criticisms using other people as examples.
Well personally, I am not against deportation. I would be against some tactics that ICE have used such as detaining or even confronting actual citizens about being here illegally. That IMO is a huge no-no. I am also against calling legitimate asylum seekers illegal immigrants. I mentioned in the past how the U.S. Canada border was seeing a string of asylum seekers crossing illegally to Canada (because of the first safe port loophole, if they were fleeing the US, they couldn't cross at an actual port of entry) and putting a strain on our system that university dorm rooms in Toronto were filling up to house them all and the army (hey look at that) setting up temporary camps. The difference is that Canada provided the resources to process them all and gave them either a quick yes, or a quick ticket home. It's perceived the U.S. does not provide the resources needed to do the same thing at their southern border.
I also do buy into the argument that it makes other law enforcement jobs harder because their is the lack of trust and their resources are already stretched thin to not have to do the feds job as well. I personally think it is a choice that the community should make by electing officials who are either for or against the practise, but no one should criticize (or punish, I think one could still criticize) a city for going either way.
DACAs however are unique. The United States had not been enforcing legal immigration for so long that people have lived 20 years here and have been culturally assimilated that sending them back now would be a culture shock. These people, in my opinion, should have a chance (I won't say right) to obtain citizenship. They shouldn't be punished for either their parents crimes, or for the government's lack of enforcement when they were younger. I think DACA laid it out reasonably well and wit stricter enforcement currently (at the time and now), this shouldn't be a problem 20 years from now.
But illegal immigration is a problem for the US because companies still hire these people to work for them. This issue should be addressed first with stricter punishments for hiring illegals (IMO including jail time for knowningly hiring them or keeping them employed once it is known they are here illegally). Take away a key benefit for coming here and numbers should dwindle (which I believe it has been).
I can make broad generalizations too: Those who dislike the use in citing logical fallacies often do so because they're more prone to commit them. Whether true or not, it's useless.
Beyond that, I dont even know what you're trying to argue. You began with a blanket statement of "Whataboutism is so dearly misunderstood these days." after quoting me, and now I'm "basically right, but it was vague and missing important context. "
In your examples, if it's not a refutation or deflection, then I said it isnt whataboutism. I think we're essentially at the point of semantics in deciding what constitutes a refutation of the same central argument. I'm not interested in that debate.
Been 8 months since the raid on the Mississippi poultry plant. Just googled it again to check in. Absolutely no news about charges for management or executives.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/mike-pence-coronavirus-gag-rule
The Coronavirus response team is on it. On the pandemic? No. But they are taking charge of the war on information. Their war on truth.
This is the absolutely the worst way to respond to a pandemic. Putting a narrow minded politician, who only cares about the political impact of the disease, in charge of the safety of the country.
It is ineptitude by design, they gutted the CDC and Pandemic Response Infrastructure. Just like they put criminals in charge of regulations and a profiteer in charge of education.
First reported on as an exclusive by The Washington Post–and quickly followed up on by The New York Times–both stories note that an HHS whistleblower filed an official complaint with the Office of the Special Counsel after alleging that she was retaliated against for voicing concerns. The whistleblower, who is seeking protection, is reportedly an award-winning expert in her field with decades of relevant experience with impeccable performance ratings.
___
The complaints being made by that whistleblower-expert:
>(1) U.S. workers were sent to the epicenter of the Coronavirus outbreak without proper training or protective gear;
>(2) those same employees were not tested for the Coronavirus;
>(3) many of those employees returned to the U.S. on a commercial flight;
>(4) after raising concerns about the wisdom of 1-3, she was allegedly reassigned and faced termination for speaking up through the chain-of-command.
If the facts don’t make Trump look good, he and his allies attack the messengers, blaming the news media and the Democrats — while trying to prevent scientists from keeping us informed. And in choosing people to deal with a real crisis, Trump prizes loyalty rather than competence.
Maybe Trump — and America — will be lucky, and this won’t be as bad as it might be. But anyone feeling confident right now isn’t paying attention.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/opinion/coronavirus-trump.html
Did you watch the briefing? Pence spent more time praising Trump that discussing what is happening. It's insane.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/japans-coronavirus-cruise-ship-debacle-shows-epidemic-can-be-a-gift-for-would-be-dictators
This would not make us significantly different than many other counties.
This was a viral outbreak, though--it was never up to Trump as to whether or not it would show up here but he does bear responsibility for the response. The topic has already become so politicized, though, that any news story about cannot be taken at face value. Maybe there are 33 cases of people testing positive in California and they are simply reporting the numbers as they exist, or maybe there are not and they are trying to use the issue to drive down support for Trump.
*************
The New York Times interviewed 93 Democrat superdelegates and almost all of them stated quite plainly that if Sanders does not have a majority going into the national convention in Milwaukee that they will *not* vote for him on second or subsequent ballots. In other words, Sanders *has* to deliver with a majority or the convention will be brokered and he won't get the nomination.
CNN's Electoral College map, based on current numbers, gives Trump a modest lead over Sanders at 260 to 248 with the toss-up States of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania deciding the election. Trump would have to win one of the two but Sanders would have to win both.
He thinks he can will this away through tweets like everything else. Trump's own favorite metric, the stock market, would beg to differ. He's been in a rage about it for 5 days in a row, and it hasn't mattered an ounce. He tied himself at the hip with it, claiming SOLE credit for it's highs. Even if what is going on now is mostly a reaction to international markets and probably completely out of his hands, it doesn't matter. You don't get to just throw it out as a barometer of your success the minute things take a turn. He wanted to be judged by the markets. So he has to eat what happens to them.
The other problem California has, which many other places don't, is the high number of homeless people whom cities are allowing to defecate on public sidewalks (note: they "allow" it by doing nothing about it). One homeless person who contracts corona, regardless of whether or not they have symptoms or become sick, can put a lot of people at risk.
I am very interested in the political affiliation of those 38%. Chances are though that question wasn’t asked.