1461
Listen here, kulak...
(i.ibb.co)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
1461 points (93.3% liked)
Memes
45445 readers
1572 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The first commenter is talking a hypothetical scenario of socialism being bad, so the second commenter (the one you responded to) responded with actual example of that same hypothetical scenario happening, but except by a capitalist power (the US). I don't think your response makes sense at all here.
No, his response is calling out the whataboutism fallacy. The US doing something bad does not in any way, shape, or form make socialism any less shitty. It's poking fun at the delusional people who still think it's a good ideology despite the overwhelming evidence.
Calling something "Whataboutism" infers a belief in American exceptionalism. You should question that belief.
No, you're just an idiot. Whataboutism is simply a fallacy. It doesn't infer anything outside of inconsistent logic. If you feel threatened by it then it just shows that you're disingenuous.
Explain the logical flaw in this thread's exchange. Bonus: If you're going with tu quoque, explain it without putting words into anyone's mouth.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/03/is-whataboutism-always-a-bad-thing
You clearly don't understand what the fallacy is if you're actually dumb enough to post an article to try and justify it. Here's a quick run down for your own benefit. Whataboutism is the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse (This is the Merriam Webster definition). There are three reasons why this is fallacious:
The "what about" part is irrelevant to the original statement or argument. By dismissing the original point and entirely focusing entirely on the "what about" part, the person gets to use the "what about" as misdirection to avoid directly addressing what was already said. If you know your fallacies well, you would know that this sounds eerily familiar to the red herring fallacy. Not exactly the same, but very close.
It implies that because entity B did something just as bad or worse, that justifies entity A doing the same thing... when that's not the case. If I stole a bike three years 3 years ago, that doesn't justify you stealing a bike now. You criticizing me for stealing the bike 3 years ago doesn't make your criticism wrong even if you stole a bike this morning, but it also doesn't justify you stealing the bike. The point is that both actions are wrong, each entity is responisble for it's own actions. One doesn't justify, excuse, or negate the other.
The whataboutism fallacy is a variant of the Tu Quouque fallacy (that's not a bonus, that's literally what it is) which is a subsection of the ad hominem argument. An ad hom becomes fallacious when an a character attack is used in place of an actual argument. Which is what happens with whataboutism. The person using it is replacing an actual argument with a charged accusation of hypocrisy and nothing more, which is basically just a character attack.
In this case, the OP of this comment thread made a hypothetical scenario poking fun at the authoritarianism, poor working conditions, and the corruption that is so often found in socialist states. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but if you want to make rebuttal against it, you have to actually address it. The second commenter in this thread did not address it. Instead he brought up a random point about American companies promoting lead. Not only is his comment an irrelevant non-sequitur, but it doesn't disprove the point that OP was trying to make. That second commenter is clearly a Marxist who got offended by the point that the OP made, and so he quickly resorted to the "what about the US" fallback tactic to both avoid addressing the point that was actually made and to pull a weak "gotcha". It's the ol' classic "oh yeah? but look at the US is bad therefore Marxism is good/not as bad/excused/justified in doing shitty thing". It's inconsistent logic.
Then again, Marxism is truly a brain dead ideology. Without propaganda about the US, the entire school of thought would collapse. What is there left to a firmly failed ideology that failed in both theory and practice? Nothing.
wow you sound like an expert in logical fallacies, you must have studied them really hard.
Can you put the fallacious statement you identified in this thread into a logical statement, and then explain how it's fallacious? Feel free to use formal symbols!
It would really help me understand the fallacy, and it must be easy for you to do as an expert.
Fill the blanks, then explain what's fallacious.
Claiming Whataboutism is a logical fallacy first used by English colonizers, dont use it
This comment is do dumb it doesn't even deserve a proper reply.
Calling out whataboutism is perfectly acceptable when it is being used regardless of its origins.
It is in no way a logical fallacy and in fact the use of whataboutism is itself a logical fallacy.
The flaw in gorilladrum's argument is that the hypothetical example demonstrates the flaws in that specific situation and does not address problems in socialism as a whole yet they suggest it dismisses the ideology completely.
People cry whataboutism when they dislike people throwing context that goes against their argument into a discussion.
The only people who feel threatned by others calling out fallacies are the ones who know they're disingenuous but still act in bad faith anyway.
People resort to whataboutism when they do not have a counterpoint.
That's literally whataboutism, I criticized people using the vocabulary of "whataboutism" and then you said "but whatabout people who are doing whataboutism!"
To be clear, I dont believe whataboutism is a fallacy, but you do, so why are you doing it?
It's funny liberals had to start calling it "Whataboutism" as the previous term made it clear they were racist.
What was the previous term?
"And you are lynching negroes"
Also a great podcast on the term Whataboutism and it's history here:
https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-66-whataboutism-the-medias-favorite-rhetorical-shield-against-criticism-of-us-policy-c562de690eac
No it isn't. I am explaining why whataboutism is a fallacy itself. If you have a valid counterpoint to a claim there would be no need to engage with whataboutism.
I am not engaging in whataboutism but based on your view that it isn't fallacious Im not sure you will understand that. Not everyone is good at logical processing.
I was criticizing people claiming whataboutism, you were doing "but what about people doing whataboutism!" Which is whataboutism.
Hence why we are having this conversation.
Yes we are having this because of your logical failures which you are doubling down on.
You're literally advocating for the concept of a fallacy which is basically whining "no you can't just provide context nooo that would defeat my point." Which was first used to excuse British colonial brutality and later used to defend lynching.
No I am not doing that.
Whataboutism is an actual fallacy even if you din't recognize that.
If we were talking about the vast amounts of crimes the British East India company was responsible for and you chimed in with "whatabout the Dutch East India company's crimes" that would be a fallacious point because it is unrelated to the discussion and is only a diversionary tactic.
That is why whataboutism is a fallacy. It is used by people who cannot address the argument being made which you have done here.
The fact that the initial use of the term was to defray from atrocities doesn't make the use of whataboutisms logically valid.
If you mention that the soviet union used tear gas in rare instances and therefore they're authoritarian then I mention that the US frequently tear gasses protestors and BLM organizers keep showing up having shot themselves in the back of the head twice and you dont call them authoritarian that's "whataboutism" and it isnt a fallacy, it is providing context that points out hypocrisy.
You dont want to understand yourself to be a hypocrite but you don't want to change, is what it boils down to. So you do the though terminating "whataboutism" and you can ignore it.
In my Dutch/British East India Co example it is whataboutism because the purpose of brining up the Dutch East India company is to divert from the subject at hand. In your examples you ARE providing context and are not trying to change the subject so your examples are not examples of whataboutism and that is why you are not understanding what "whataboutism" is and why it is a fallacy.
If I said the USSR was authoritarian and therefore did not represent the will of the masses and you said "what about British the monarchy" and then tried to focus on that discussion then that would ge whataboutism.
Whataboutism is not about providing context through contrasting examples. It is a diversionary tactic for when you cannot address the claims made.
Im not being a hypocrite. You just don't understand what whataboutism is as you have proved with your examples which once again are not examples of whataboutism.
That's a shitty way of separating it though. It relies on knowing authorial intent which is impossible. You can project whatever you want onto the other person and based on that theyre either doing a logical fallacy or not.
No it doesn't. The intent is obvious as a counter example works in context and isn't a diversionary tactic.
If the topic is Donald Trump's role in the insurrection on 1/6/21 and you say "but whatabout Hilary's email's?" that's whataboutism because Hilary's email scandal is unrelated.
If you instead said "what about the fact that Trump never appeared with the crowd outside the designated permitted spot and never told anyone to riot?" that would not be whataboutism because it is relevant.
Context is everything. Whataboutism is a fallacy and that is why. It does not make an argument flow from premise to conclusion.