Whataboutism makes no sense: it's illogical

[Estro Felino]

Not at all. It is necessary to look into the reasons for each of the aggressors starting their actions.

It does appear, in Russia's case, it simply wants a larger piece of the "breadbasket of Europe" and/or to provide a buffer against NATO.

The U.S. (and other countries) operations in Libya were authorized by the United Nations, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973), in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the intent of the UN Security Council was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity' ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Muammar Gaddafi regime and its supporters." No nation was seeking to take part of Libya for themselves.

These are very, very different in cause, nature and effect.

Libya was destroyed for no reason and the US didn't restore its ancient splendor.
That was a big mistake.

Ukraine has been devastated by a war, in Donbas, due to the Russian invasion.
So I can't see any difference between the two world powers. Do you?

 

[Koldo]

Which basically is a pretext to legitimize double standards.
That is, the US is God, so it can start any war.

Russia is nothing, so it cannot start the Ukrainian war.
Right?

Here's an example of whataboutism: But what about all the wars started by the USA?

Here's NOT an example of whataboutism: Indeed, Russia is not justified in invading Ukraine. But what about all the wars started by the USA? I see you using different standards to judge Russia and the USA.

If you address the topic at hand, and then point out someone else is using a double standard, you are not engaging in whataboutism.

 

[Estro Felino]

It can be useful to broaden discussions
with relevant issues. But when you try to
change the subject, this is whataboutism.
For example, in threads about Trump's
problems, to start criticizing Obama is
irrelevant. Don't do that.

And that legitimizes doublestandardism.
Because it means that presidents are judged according to different standards.

Obama is judged with infinite clemency.
Trump is judged with infinite mercilessness.

That's double standards.

 

[libre]

Not only.
I have been accused of whataboutism whenever I mentioned the wars started by the US in a thread speaking of Ukraine.
Is that whataboutism as well?

If you're using US invasions to try to justify, defend or distract from the invasion of Ukraine, yes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Then explain me what double standards are.

Think of Mitch McConnell, majority leader of the Senate, refusing to even meet Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, "because it is an election year," even though there were 11 months until the next election, and subsequent appointment of Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, with just 43 days to go until the next election.

This was a blatant and most egregious double standard.

 

[Estro Felino]

If you're using US invasions to try to justify, defend or distract from the invasion of Ukraine, yes.

Well...Poles condemn Russia every day, because of this war.

But Poland has never attacked anyone. It was always attacked. So they have a point.

It's weird when Americans condemn Russia and refuse to condemn their own governments. That's my point.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that legitimizes doublestandardism.
Because it means that presidents are judged according to different standards.

No.

Obama is judged with infinite clemency.
Trump is judged with infinite mercilessness.

That's double standards.

No, it's just your warped sense of reality.
Obama got away with much mischief.
But this doesn't justify letting Trump off the
hook for doing far far worse, eg, treason.

If Trump is ultimately found guilty of his
crimes, & punished appropriately, then
perhaps this will create a new environment
wherein someone like Obama or Clinton
would be prosecuted for their crimes.

 

[Estro Felino]

Think of Mitch McConnell, majority leader of the Senate, refusing to even meet Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, "because it is an election year," even though there were 11 months until the next election, and subsequent appointment of Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, with just 43 days to go until the next election.

This was a blatant and most egregious double standard.

Surely.

 

[Revoltingest]

Surely.

Don't call him Shirley.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And that legitimizes doublestandardism.
Because it means that presidents are judged according to different standards.

Obama is judged with infinite clemency.
Trump is judged with infinite mercilessness.

That's double standards.

That's obvious nonsense. Trump is not being "judged with infinite mercilessness" by his supporters, now is? Look at the polls. And I hear a lot of criticism of Obama -- you just need to read the news on both sides of the political divide.

For myself, I judged them both by their behaviours -- and there is no comparison whatever. Obama behaved like a decent human being, whatever his flaws might have been and whatever I thought of his policies. Trump behaved (and still does) like an ignorant boor, a spoiled brat child throwing a tantrum every time somebody disagrees with him, and treats every human he meets as either of source or preventer of advantage to himself alone.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Don't call him Shirley.

My mother's name.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, it's just your warped sense of reality.
Obama got away with much mischief.

He was given the Nobel Prize for Peace.
It's like giving Stormy Daniels the Nobel Prize for Virginity.

But this doesn't justify letting Trump off the
hook for doing far far worse, eg, treason.

He betrayed the MIC, yes. And the Sorosian framework. God bless the Donald.

 

[Revoltingest]

He was given the Nobel Prize for Peace.

I wrote a poem about it....

Much to the left leaning voters' delight,
Obama received the Nobel Prize last night.
So why the award
for one so adored?
Twas nothing he did, but someday he might.


His Nobel Prize was more of a participation
trophy....something to encourage with
unearned praise.

 

[Estro Felino]

His Nobel Prize was more of a participation
trophy....something to encourage with
unearned praise.

I must have had twenty boyfriends. Now I demand the Nobel for chastity.

 

[Revoltingest]

I must have had twenty boyfriends. Now I demand the Nobel for chastity.

Bad analogy because it shows contradiction
rather than adoring prognostication.

When using analogies, one must first understand
the fundamental concept, & then replicate it.
Example....
If you were 2 years old, & got a Nobel
Prize for chastity, that would work.

 

[Estro Felino]

Bad analogy because it shows contradiction
rather than adoring prognostication.

It was sarcasm.
Obama was the most warlike president and got the Nobel for peace.

So it means that the Nobel prize is given for the the exact opposite of what one has done.

 

[Viker]

I must have had twenty boyfriends. Now I demand the Nobel for chastity.

I deserve the Nobel for sainthood.


Hail Satan!

 

[Revoltingest]

It was sarcasm.

You changed the context without a segue.
That made your analogy wrong.
Now you're just trying to change the issue.
More whataboutism.
Your conversations are much like Whack-A-Mole.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Libya was destroyed for no reason and the US didn't restore its ancient splendor.
That was a big mistake.

Ukraine has been devastated by a war, in Donbas, due to the Russian invasion.
So I can't see any difference between the two world powers. Do you?

I believe you greatly overstate both the damage done to Libya (which was mostly military) and its former splendor. To begin with, it's 90% desert. And most of its "ancient splendor" is ancient ruins.

 

[Estro Felino]

You changed the context without a segue.
That made your analogy wrong.
Now you're just trying to change the issue.
More whataboutism.
Your conversations are much like Whack-A-Mole.

You need to understand my cultural background.
As I understand yours: that is, in your culture, debates are less animated.