Current Events > Everyone on this websight knows whataboutism is wrong by now

(+) Yeah! (+)

So why do you still use it? Do you think there's a time when whataboutism is okay to be used?

---

when people are criticizing US, whataboutism and deflection is acceptable.

---

What about that time TC used whataboutism

---

Zodd3224 posted...

What about that time TC used whataboutism

What about the time you mentioned the time the tc used whataboutism?!

---

There are situations where it works. But for the most part, deflecting is just shifting blame.
---

Pointing out hypocrisy is not wrong.

PaulieWalnuts posted...

Pointing out hypocrisy is not wrong.

But deflecting to shift blame is.

---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

But deflecting to shift blame is.

False. If it is, name the fallacy that it falls under.

Slayer_22 posted...

There are situations where it works. But for the most part, deflecting is just shifting blame.

I feel like that's the same for all the "logical fallacies". Just because they absolutely can be used incorrectly and a person is clearly not arguing in good faith, there are some situations where a "whataboutism" is justified (and some of the other fallacies I'm sure)

---

PaulieWalnuts posted...

False. If it is, name the fallacy that it falls under.

Well then no one can ever be wrong so long as they keep pointing fingers LMAO.

---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I feel like that's the same for all the "logical fallacies". Just because they absolutely can be used incorrectly and a person is clearly not arguing in good faith, there are some situations where a "whataboutism" is justified (and some of the other fallacies I'm sure)

Exactly right. It's just frustrating that it's seen in a bad light. For instance, someone pointed out bringing up hypocrisy. Which is a fair and legitimate point in an argument. If a person trusts one thing but doesn't trust another, despite both being comparable in the exact same way, it's a fair point to bring it up, for example.

But most of it is just used to try and undermine another person's argument or deflect blame or whatever.
---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Well then no one can ever be wrong so long as they keep pointing fingers LMAO.

Whataboutism is some stupid shit people came up with on Reddit, Tumblr, or wherever else dumb shits hang out. Its not a real logical fallacy.

PaulieWalnuts posted...

Whataboutism is some stupid shit people came up with on Reddit, Tumblr, or wherever else dumb shits hang out. Its not a real logical fallacy.

It's real. Or in everyone's case, it's only real when it's convenient.

---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

It's real.

Its real stupid is what it is. Its not a recognized logical fallacy.

Websight is so cringey and not at all funny or clever.

---

You really think you can do this, accuse me of whataboutism when there's other people in here who have done it? :'( I thought you were better than that.

---

Slayer_22 posted...

Exactly right. It's just frustrating that it's seen in a bad light. For instance, someone pointed out bringing up hypocrisy. Which is a fair and legitimate point in an argument. If a person trusts one thing but doesn't trust another, despite both being comparable in the exact same way, it's a fair point to bring it up, for example.

But most of it is just used to try and undermine another person's argument or deflect blame or whatever.

Right?!

If you said "person A is not allowed to do X because of Y" and you're trying to justify that I think a valid response is well you literally just let person "B do X" That seems valid.

Saying Trump added tariffs making things more expensive and the response being "what about Obama and Benghazi" that is not valid "whataboutism"

---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

Right?!

If you said "person A is not allowed to do X because of Y" and you're trying to justify that I think a valid response is well you literally just let person "B do X" That seems valid.

Saying Trump added tariffs making things more expensive and the response being "what about Obama and Benghazi" that is not valid "whataboutism"

My favorite is when they bring off topic stuff in.

"Oh, you disagree with me? Well, I'll have you know this obscure movie you like HAS this thing you disagree with."

Oh no, whatever shall I do?
---

PaulieWalnuts posted...

False. If it is, name the fallacy that it falls under.

Tu quoque

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

"Whataboutism" is one particularly well known instance of this fallacy.

---

PaulieWalnuts posted...

Whataboutism is some stupid shit people came up with on Reddit, Tumblr, or wherever else dumb shits hang out. Its not a real logical fallacy.

It is.

---

Don't argue with Pony. He does this thing where he acts like something doesn't exist so it's not valid against his logic.

---

PaulieWalnuts posted...

Whataboutism is some stupid shit people came up with on Reddit, Tumblr, or wherever else dumb shits hang out. Its not a real logical fallacy.

Maybe the term (still I have doubts on that), but it has existed for a lot longer than the internet has been around.

Like with kids getting grounded by their parents. Youre grounded! Well what about Sara she was out late too?! She called and told us she would be late you didnt.


---

brestugo posted...

Tu quoque

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

"Whataboutism" is one particularly well known instance of this fallacy.

Literally wikipedia. Lmao.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/#CorFal

rexcrk posted...

Websight is so cringey and not at all funny or clever.

It's to get a response from you exclusively

---

PaulieWalnuts posted...

Literally wikipedia. Lmao.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/#CorFal

Any Logic source will explain tu quoque. It is a derivative of ad hominem because it attacks the "hypocrisy" of an argument without getting at the validity.

https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/The%20Ad%20Hominem%20Family.html

I taught the subject.

Take the L.

---

Narcissists hate when you do it, so they tried to make a term to deflect blame.

---

What about people on other webcites?
---

The term "whataboutism" was made up during the cold war so that the US could endlessly criticize the USSR but if you wanted to respond with criticisms of the US it was "whataboutism". Basically it's just a way to shut down any criticism of the US by shrieking endlessly about other countries.

---

1337toothbrush posted...

The term "whataboutism" was made up during the cold war so that the US could endlessly criticize the USSR but if you wanted to respond with criticisms of the US it was "whataboutism". Basically it's just a way to shut down any criticism of the US by shrieking endlessly about other countries.

It's just a name for a variation of a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Knowledge of it predates the Cold War by a lot. And the reason people do whataboutism is because they don't want to acknowledge a problem about whatever position or entity they support, so they just talk about something else instead. It's a lot easier than trying to defend a genocide, a war crime, or whatever other atrocious shit they're simping for.

It's the logical equivalent of being accused of murder and telling the judge "your honor other people have also comitted crimes" and thinking that was some slam dunk defense.

---

ssjevot posted...

It's just a name for a variation of a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Knowledge of it predates the Cold War by a lot. And the reason people do whataboutism is because they don't want to acknowledge a problem about whatever position or entity they support, so they just talk about something else instead. It's a lot easier than trying to defend a genocide, a war crime, or whatever other atrocious shit they're simping for.

It's the logical equivalent of being accused of murder and telling the judge "your honor other people have also comitted crimes" and thinking that was some slam dunk defense.

Except the people who love throwing the term around the most love doing it themselves. "The Iraq war was a huge mistake" "OH YEAH WELL GENOCIDE IN CHINA!!!1" but it doesn't count as "whataboutism" when they do it. The US has never given a shit about human rights except as an excuse for war.

---

1337toothbrush posted...

The term "whataboutism" was made up during the cold war so that the US could endlessly criticize the USSR but if you wanted to respond with criticisms of the US it was "whataboutism". Basically it's just a way to shut down any criticism of the US by shrieking endlessly about other countries.

When the Soviets ran tanks through Eastern Europe, they responded with "what about blacks in the South?"

Hence whataboutism.

If there is any attempt to shut down criticism, it is the whataboutists. Watch Putin's interview when he met Biden earlier this year. When he was asked about murdered journalists, he whatabouted to George Floyd - as if he genuinely cared about blacks or police brutality in America.

Also note that in discussions of China, certain users do the same.

---

ssjevot posted...

It's just a name for a variation of a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Knowledge of it predates the Cold War by a lot. And the reason people do whataboutism is because they don't want to acknowledge a problem about whatever position or entity they support, so they just talk about something else instead. It's a lot easier than trying to defend a genocide, a war crime, or whatever other atrocious shit they're simping for.

It's the logical equivalent of being accused of murder and telling the judge "your honor other people have also comitted crimes" and thinking that was some slam dunk defense.

+1

Also, for those lurking, Tu quoque goes back around 500 years as a term, so the reddit/social media origin story is shit.

---

brestugo posted...

When the Soviets ran tanks through Eastern Europe, they responded with "what about blacks in the South?"

Hence whataboutism.

If there is any attempt to shut down criticism, it is the whataboutists. Watch Putin's interview when he met Biden earlier this year. When he was asked about murdered journalists, he whatabouted to George Floyd - as if he genuinely cared about blacks or police brutality in America.

Also note that in discussions of China, certain users do the same.

Biden cares about murdered journalists? What's he going to do to Saudi Arabia for murdering Jamal Khashoggi other than continue to lick their asses?

---

1337toothbrush posted...

Except the people who love throwing the term around the most love doing it themselves. "The Iraq war was a huge mistake" "OH YEAH WELL GENOCIDE IN CHINA!!!1" but it doesn't count as "whataboutism" when they do it. The US has never given a shit about human rights except as an excuse for war.

Take the L.

This is just bad all around.

Here's another logical term: Strawman.


---

1337toothbrush posted...

Except the people who love throwing the term around the most love doing it themselves. "The Iraq war was a huge mistake" "OH YEAH WELL GENOCIDE IN CHINA!!!1" but it doesn't count as "whataboutism" when they do it. The US has never given a shit about human rights except as an excuse for war.

Whataboutism doesn't stop being a fallacy depending on who is doing it. Anytime you try to deflect from the accusation by bringing up something unrelated that's whataboutism. It doesn't matter what shitty country's shitty actions your trying to defend by pointing out some other shitty country doing something shitty, it's still whataboutism. The problem is you never acknowledge the actual problem, you just point out other problems exist as if that somehow makes it okay.

---

1337toothbrush posted...

Biden cares about murdered journalists? What's he going to do to Saudi Arabia for murdering Jamal Khashoggi other than continue to lick their asses?

A journalist asked Putin about a murdered journalist and poisonings in Russia. Putin whatabouted. Keep up.

Also, you just whatabouted. I am not sure what a privately owned media outlet has to with the Khashoggi murder.

Again, keep up.

---

ssjevot posted...

Whataboutism doesn't stop being a fallacy depending on who is doing it. Anytime you try to deflect from the accusation by bringing up something unrelated that's whataboutism. It doesn't matter what shitty country's shitty actions your trying to defend by pointing out some other shitty country doing something shitty, it's still whataboutism. The problem is you never acknowledge the actual problem, you just point out other problems exist as if that somehow makes it okay.

Yet the people I see most excited about applying the term are the biggest abusers themselves. It's just an observation I've made.


---

ssjevot posted...

Whataboutism doesn't stop being a fallacy depending on who is doing it. Anytime you try to deflect from the accusation by bringing up something unrelated that's whataboutism. It doesn't matter what shitty country's shitty actions your trying to defend by pointing out some other shitty country doing something shitty, it's still whataboutism. The problem is you never acknowledge the actual problem, you just point out other problems exist as if that somehow makes it okay.

And that's just it.

It becomes a circle jerk if you even allow it into a discussion. It becomes a waste of everyone's time and no elevation of understanding, knowledge or progress can be achieved.


---

1337toothbrush posted...

Yet the people I see most excited about applying the term are the biggest abusers themselves. It's just an observation I've made.

Take the L dude. We're done.


---

1337toothbrush posted...

Yet the people I see most excited about applying the term are the biggest abusers themselves. It's just an observation I've made.

Do you think when people respond to police murdering unarmed black people with "what about black on black violence?" that it's actually a solid defense of police murdering unarmed black people or do you correctly see the logical fallacy?

---

Machete posted...

What about people on other webcites?

@Veggeta_MAX I am going to need an answer to this question because I DEMAND it...
---

@WaterLink care to join us?

---

Not particularly, looks like you got it covered

---

PaulieWalnuts posted...

Whataboutism is some stupid shit people came up with on Reddit, Tumblr, or wherever else dumb shits hang out. Its not a real logical fallacy.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Paulie Walnuts does. Tagged him as tu quoque.

---

@PaulieWalnuts

---

I kinda get it though. If you have a problem with Person A doing something, but no problem with Person B doing the exact same thing, the only logical conclusion is that you don't really have an issue with what was done, just with the person who was doing it.

---

brestugo posted...

tu quoque.

I understand those words :D
---

but what about your own controversial topics

---