Do you want the Ukrainian War to end today?

[Revoltingest]

Russians have won the war.

Your dream come true is still just a dream.
Or more accurately, a nightmare.
One that has become Russia's.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/09/22/ukraine-missile-russia-naval-headquarters-cnntm-vpx.cnn

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whataboutism is not a thing.

It is a thing. You just demonstrated it is a thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you know who is benefitting from this war in Europe?
Only a category: white nationalists. They re glad because so many Ukrainians are migrating to Western Europe and they welcome them because they are white and Christians. They think Europe needs white Christians migrants to survive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very.

I am speaking of the Ukrainians who are fleeing their country because they don't want to fight for that president's sake.
Here the numbers. Are they few people...?

Newsflash: when a country is attacked by a super power neighbour, people flee.

Shocking!

 

[Copernicus]

Whataboutism is not a thing.

If we legitimize whataboutism, cops can drive on sidewalks and on bike lanes, and prevent civilians from driving on sidewalks.
If someone protests pointing at the fact they do the same thing, the cops will be allowed to say "that's whatboutism".

You clearly don't understand what the term means. Whataboutism has been a well-established word in the English language since the 1970s. See the Wikipedia page:

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]

 

[John53]

Yes, we are. We have been at peace for 80 years.

That is wrong as I've pointed out to you on at least 3 occasions. A simple google search ends your fantasy.

 

[Stevicus]

Whataboutism is not a thing.

If we legitimize whataboutism, cops can drive on sidewalks and on bike lanes, and prevent civilians from driving on sidewalks.
If someone protests pointing at the fact they do the same thing, the cops will be allowed to say "that's whatboutism".

I think whataboutism exists, although I would think it would have to remain within a certain context. If, for example, someone is being accused of a crime, then the only matter at hand is a specific accusation of a specific crime against a specific person, so anything outside of those narrow parameters would be considered irrelevant, off-topic, or "whataboutism."

When it comes to this topic, the parameters aren't quite so narrow as that, so what may appear to be "whataboutism" on a surface level may not actually be that when one delves further.

 

[lukethethird]

I think whataboutism exists, although I would think it would have to remain within a certain context. If, for example, someone is being accused of a crime, then the only matter at hand is a specific accusation of a specific crime against a specific person, so anything outside of those narrow parameters would be considered irrelevant, off-topic, or "whataboutism."

When it comes to this topic, the parameters aren't quite so narrow as that, so what may appear to be "whataboutism" on a surface level may not actually be that when one delves further.

Accusations of whataboutism is used to defend against accusations of hypocrisy such as by those that act like this invasion by Russia is the likes of something we've never seen before even while invasions and bombings by nato nations are routine. We see the same banner flown in every western imperialist war such as our bombs are for freedom and democracy, and what they do to us is terrorism while what we do to them is counterterrorism. It gets really tedious.

 

[Copernicus]

Accusations of whataboutism is used to defend against accusations of hypocrisy such as by those that act like this invasion by Russia is the likes of something we've never seen before even while invasions and bombings by nato nations are routine. We see the same banner flown in every western imperialist war such as our bombs are for freedom and democracy, and what they do to us is terrorism while what we do to them is counterterrorism. It gets really tedious.

Luke, you seem to have missed the point. A whataboutism is a charge of hypocrisy, which is a classic ad hominem argument. You seem to have doubled down by using a whataboutism to attack those who point out that it is a fallacy. Irony meters are breaking all over the place.

 

[lukethethird]

Luke, you seem to have missed the point. A whataboutism is a charge of hypocrisy, which is a classic ad hominem argument. You seem to have doubled down by using a whataboutism to attack those who point out that it is a fallacy. Irony meters are breaking all over the place.

I have been accused of whataboutism for pointing out hypocrisies, so it can and has been used as a pejorative to deflect criticism.
Although not directed at me, post 423, case in point, whataboutism used in a pejorative sense to deflect away from an accusation of hypocrisy.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think whataboutism exists, although I would think it would have to remain within a certain context. If, for example, someone is being accused of a crime, then the only matter at hand is a specific accusation of a specific crime against a specific person, so anything outside of those narrow parameters would be considered irrelevant, off-topic, or "whataboutism."

When it comes to this topic, the parameters aren't quite so narrow as that, so what may appear to be "whataboutism" on a surface level may not actually be that when one delves further.

In an interview with Putin, by Megyn Kelly, whataboutism is strongly condemned by Putin, as well.
Putin said that he asked US officials at the UN: "but you Americans have been doing the exact same things in Libya, Syria, etc...".
And those US officials replied: "because we are the US, we can do it. You re Russia, you cannot do anything".

That's the kind of doublestandardism that makes whataboutism a really desperate way to accept injustice, and inequality.

Through whataboutism, you force me to accept that the "law is not equal for all" because there are people above the law. Like the US.

Cut NBC sgmnt with Ptn and Mgyn Kll by rair2 - 3speak.tv

<p>This is interesting.</p>

3speak.tv

 

[Estro Felino]

I have been accused of whataboutism for pointing out hypocrisies, so it can and has been used as a pejorative to deflect criticism.
Although not directed at me, post 423, case in point, whataboutism used in a pejorative sense to deflect away from an accusation of hypocrisy.

Whataboutism is a term invented to legitimize double standards.
Because people feel entitled and above the law, applying the law to others.

 

[Stevicus]

Accusations of whataboutism is used to defend against accusations of hypocrisy such as by those that act like this invasion by Russia is the likes of something we've never seen before even while invasions and bombings by nato nations are routine. We see the same banner flown in every western imperialist war such as our bombs are for freedom and democracy, and what they do to us is terrorism while what we do to them is counterterrorism. It gets really tedious.

I think much of it might depend on the context and how an argument might be constructed.

Also, there might very well be a connection between the behavior of NATO, the West, and the US, in particular, these past few decades since the end of the Cold War. This has formed the perceptions that other countries have about the U.S. Many of our military activities haven't necessarily directly involved Russia or their sphere of influence, but they could see what we were doing, and this undoubtedly affected their opinions about the United States government. (I've heard that the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999 was a pivotal moment when their opinion of us started to shift. It was probably the same with China, since their embassy in Belgrade was also bombed - and it just happened to be the HQ for all Chinese intel operations in the Middle East. Oops.)

They see the same things we do, except without the color of the Captain America glasses so many people are wearing these days. So, it suffices to say that our own military adventurism has cast us in an unfavorable light and has no doubt had a diminishing effect on our relations with other countries, which has seemingly led some of them to have to make difficult choices.
I don't see how it would be "whataboutism" to bring this up in this context, since there are countries which have grievances against the West. If that's what has soured our relationship and turned us into enemies, then at the very least, we should be willing and able to examine all the angles. The world is interconnected and our actions can have a ripple effect and trigger other actions or attitudes which we may not expect.

 

[Copernicus]

I have been accused of whataboutism for pointing out hypocrisies, so it can and has been used as a pejorative to deflect criticism.
Although not directed at me, post 423, case in point, whataboutism used in a pejorative sense to deflect away from an accusation of hypocrisy.

Maybe you did not understand my point. It may be true that someone is a hypocrite, but that does not mean that the argument being made by that person is flawed. So pointing out hypocrisy (which we all do from time to time, not just you) is always an ad hominem fallacy. It cannot be used to invalidate a claim being made by someone, even if you disagree with that claim and think they are a hypocrite for making it. I urge you to look up ad hominem fallacies and think about why they don't prove what you think they prove. As for post 423, I think that @Revoltingest made a perfectly valid criticism when he called you out for whataboutism. That doesn't mean that your position was wrong or that a claim you made was wrong. It means that your counterargument was fallacious. You needed to attack the argument you disagreed with, not the person making it for being a hypocrite (in your opinion).

 

[Estro Felino]

I think much of it might depend on the context and how an argument might be constructed.

Also, there might very well be a connection between the behavior of NATO, the West, and the US, in particular, these past few decades since the end of the Cold War. This has formed the perceptions that other countries have about the U.S. Many of our military activities haven't necessarily directly involved Russia or their sphere of influence, but they could see what we were doing, and this undoubtedly affected their opinions about the United States government. (I've heard that the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999 was a pivotal moment when their opinion of us started to shift. It was probably the same with China, since their embassy in Belgrade was also bombed - and it just happened to be the HQ for all Chinese intel operations in the Middle East. Oops.)

They see the same things we do, except without the color of the Captain America glasses so many people are wearing these days. So, it suffices to say that our own military adventurism has cast us in an unfavorable light and has no doubt had a diminishing effect on our relations with other countries, which has seemingly led some of them to have to make difficult choices.
I don't see how it would be "whataboutism" to bring this up in this context, since there are countries which have grievances against the West. If that's what has soured our relationship and turned us into enemies, then at the very least, we should be willing and able to examine all the angles. The world is interconnected and our actions can have a ripple effect and trigger other actions or attitudes which we may not expect.

With all due respect, I believe the US doesn't treat all of its allies equally.
France, UK...of course. They are considered great allies and they are permanent members of the UN.

I understood that the US still, kinda hold some grudge towards Germany. Because of WW2.
Despite the fact, that Germans love the US. It's one of the most americanized places you'll find in Europe.
Germans recall American intervention with great love and thankfulness.
The Kessler Twins, here, said that American soldiers used to feed German civilians, after the war.

But the Nordstream question showed that Germany is not independent.
Germany doesn't have the same independence as France.
And Germany is the first industrial power in Europe, and the first economy in Europe. France is the fourth industrial power, after Italy, which is the second.

 

[Estro Felino]

Maybe you did not understand my point. It may be true that someone is a hypocrite, but that does not mean that the argument being made by that person is flawed. So pointing out hypocrisy (which we all do from time to time, not just you) is always an ad hominem fallacy. It cannot be used to invalidate a claim being made by someone, even if you disagree with that claim and think they are a hypocrite for making it. I urge you to look up ad hominem fallacies and think about why they don't prove what you think they prove. As for post 423, I think that @Revoltingest made a perfectly valid criticism when he called you out for whataboutism. That doesn't mean that your position was wrong or that a claim you made was wrong. It means that your counterargument was fallacious. You needed to attack the argument you disagreed with, not the person making it for being a hypocrite (in your opinion).

It's fallacious if you think that the law is not equal for all.
It's not fallacious if you think the law is equal for all.

 

[Copernicus]

In an interview with Putin, by Megyn Kelly, whataboutism is strongly condemned by Putin, as well.
Putin said that he asked US officials at the UN: "but you Americans have been doing the exact same things in Libya, Syria, etc...".
And those US officials replied: "because we are the US, we can do it. You re Russia, you cannot do anything".

That's the kind of doublestandardism that makes whataboutism a really desperate way to accept injustice, and inequality.

Through whataboutism, you force me to accept that the "law is not equal for all" because there are people above the law. Like the US.

That is so ironic. An old Communist apparatchik condemning attacks on whataboutism. If you know anything about Soviet propaganda, you know that they explicitly engage in that tactic, because they know it works. It was a common tactic used in Nazi propaganda, and the Soviet Union modeled many of its propaganda tactics on their ally at the beginning of WWII, Nazi Germany. (I've seen comparisons done of the way Soviet propagandists consciously borrowed the same techniques. (See, for example, Nazi And Soviet Propaganda's Shared Aesthetic.) Whatever your opponent accuses you of, you turn that around on them and accuse them of the same thing. (Also see Whataboutism: The Cold War tactic, thawed by Putin, is brandished by Donald Trump.)

 

[Stevicus]

In an interview with Putin, by Megyn Kelly, whataboutism is strongly condemned by Putin, as well.
Putin said that he asked US officials at the UN: "but you Americans have been doing the exact same things in Libya, Syria, etc...".
And those US officials replied: "because we are the US, we can do it. You re Russia, you cannot do anything".

That's the kind of doublestandardism that makes whataboutism a really desperate way to accept injustice, and inequality.

Through whataboutism, you force me to accept that the "law is not equal for all" because there are people above the law. Like the US.

Americans tend to be raised with the idea that we are always the good guys - even when we're the bad guys.

 

[Copernicus]

It's fallacious if you think that the law is not equal for all.
It's not fallacious if you think the law is equal for all.

Logical fallacies are invalid regardless of what anyone believes about the law. Nobody can force you to educate yourself, but you would really do yourself a favor if you read the Wikipedia link on whataboutism that I gave you earlier or did some of your own research.

 

[Estro Felino]

Logical fallacies are invalid regardless of what anyone believes about the law. Nobody can force you to educate yourself, but you would really do yourself a favor if you read the Wikipedia link on whataboutism that I gave you earlier or did some of your own research.

It's a cultural thing.
You guys manage your debates differently than us.

Because in our debates, we apply the same standards on different situations.
Otherwise one is accused of doublestandardism. And double standards are inapplicable in a debate.

You cannot convince me of something cultural which is light years away from my cultural framework.