It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

been thinking about all this whataboutism lately

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
i want to start by saying that we all do this.
its funny cause we all do this yet when the 'other side' does this we call them on it.
i see it daily in the political forums.

we all see it. we can at lest admit we all do it.

i try not to do it because i get called on it but i do it.
if you are honest you can admit that you do as well. i dont literally mean ALL but a great damn deal.

so lets assume it is in bad form or wrong or not an acceptable argument/tactic to use...

can we think if it as something like legal precedent?

simple.wikipedia.org...


In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule.[1] This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts.[


to me that basically sounds like whataboutism just on a grander, legal scale?

so can we look at whataboutism this way?
if not, why?

should we start looking at it this way?
if not why?

we have all read about court cases where legal precedents are cited and even causes the tipping point in the ruling.

i mean if i am in court for something my lawyer is going to argue that "in the case of the state vs blah blah blah in 1957"

see what i mean?




posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

There is a big difference between legal precedent and hypocrisy.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Some people think judgement based on prior behavior is wrong. Especially children. Sometimes Republicans, always Democrats.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Whataboutism or examples proving that there is nothing new under the sun?

If you can go back and show nearly the exact same thing occurred previously, then it's not a new event. Do we need to treat this event like it's never happened before? And what can we learn about how it was handled and how people treated this same event previously?

There might be lessons there for us.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Whataboutism or examples proving that there is nothing new under the sun?

If you can go back and show nearly the exact same thing occurred previously, then it's not a new event. Do we need to treat this event like it's never happened before? And what can we learn about how it was handled and how people treated this same event previously?

There might be lessons there for us.


Dog Whistle is the freakin hilarious one! You take the words that were said and and due to your great mind reading abilities decide to tell everyone else "This is what they really meant when they said..........". Love that one!



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
The main thrust of whataboutism is the Tu quoque fallacy, an appeal to hypocrisy, except that the appeal usually starts with "what about...". It is often used by the accused and the defence as a red-herring.

Tu quoque shouldn't be used to dismiss the arguments of the opponent or to believe they are wrong, but other than that, there really is no problem in proving rampant hypocrisy, especially when the argument is not dismissed.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
If it provides an extra dynamic or a tangent from the discussion that is in context, then for the purpose of a discussion board, what is the problem?

Generally it's all under the same political umbrella.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


An example would be Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"



is that the same as

"trump is a liar"

then

"remember, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"

im just trying to get a handle on why a great many of us use the "what about" argument if thats what you want to call it while also claiming, "nice whataboutism" when it is something we dont agree with...

and we are all hypocrites to some degree

i do it. ive done it

why?
easy response maybe... like a quick go to.....
not sure



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


An example would be Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"



is that the same as

"trump is a liar"

then

"remember, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"

im just trying to get a handle on why a great many of us use the "what about" argument if thats what you want to call it while also claiming, "nice whataboutism" when it is something we dont agree with...

and we are all hypocrites to some degree

i do it. ive done it

why?
easy response maybe... like a quick go to.....
not sure


I think it's most egregious when people dismiss the argument entirely. So yeah, your example would be a tu quoque.

But if they address your criticism, refute or agree with your argument, but still say show hypocrisy then I don't think there is a fallacy there.

Invalid:

"trump lies"

"what about Obama"?

(dismissed the argument)

Valid:

"Trump lies"

"Misstatements aren't lies. A lie is when someone intentionally tells a falsity with the intention of deceiving, like when Obama said promised we could keep our doctors."

(didn't dismiss the argument)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

Invalid:

"trump lies"

"what about Obama"?

(dismissed the argument)

Valid:

"Trump lies"

"Misstatements aren't lies. A lie is when someone intentionally tells a falsity with the intention of deceiving, like when Obama said promised we could keep our doctors."

(didn't dismiss the argument)


that makes sense

i do see more of the former though

going to try to do more of the latter




posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

No , I do Not . Can you Please be More Obscure ? I Love Puzzles.............



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

It's just used as deflection for the main part honestly, especially on ATS/politics, to dismiss whoever's point it's getting thrown at, It's lazy! seems to be the new 'go to' for many in the last year or so though. As with many buzzwords and debating tactics they usually ride a wave in popularity, usually used by people who claim to be free thinkers and separate from the herd mentality, ironically.

I can't believe the amount of times i see someone on here throw it in a post, as a dismissive tactic, then go on and make one themselves either in another thread or more often than not the same thread.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Early in my career of arguing on the internet, I gave into this fallacy simply due to my lack of knowledge.
I couldn't easily admit when I was in error, reminding my 'debate partner' when they were wrong took the edge off.

As I have eaten a king's ration of shoes and humble pie, I've learned to let go of fear.

A general truth of human behavior is insecurity.
Each of us believes things about ourselves. These beliefs define our thoughts and actions.
When something bothers us, it's generally due to something we don't like in ourselves.

When an individual is confronted with a possibility that they are in error, all of these behaviors spring into action.
(cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, projects, etc).

The quickest way out of this confrontation is either denial or 'what-about-ism'

_______

Another side of 'what-about-ism' is genuine clarity.

One example that hit me recently was the 'KIDS IN CAGES" outrage that the media ejaculated to get the spotlight off of the NK Summit.

My feed was full of outrage and horror over the revelations being broadcast. It bothered me because many of these same people called me names in 2011, 2012, and 2014 when I brought up the same issues under Obama.

It got so bad, that I went back into my own feed to the OP. I reposted it, and showed many people the things they said in years past. They projected comments at me like: "FOX News shill, can't stand a black president, pushing propaganda to discredit immigration, I'm afraid of brown people, etc..."

It really pissed them off to be caught in their own deliberate behavior.

The one story that seems to make people the MOST crazy is this one:

5100 Dreamers put into foster care, parents deported

In this case I don't think it was 'what-about-ism' as much as.... be consistent.
edit on 15-10-2018 by LedermanStudio because: engrish



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Interesting noticing! I think your olive branch may be used more as a switch here...but, I admire the noticing.

Be well.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Enderdog

Be well.


oh im sure people are going to murder death kill.

get it?^^



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears


and we are all hypocrites to some degree

i do it. ive done it

why?
easy response maybe... like a quick go to.....
not sure


It makes your side look more correct when it happens. And somehow, that equates to "winning".

Both the left and the right do bad things. How bad depends on who you speak to.

I think it should be called out and harped on relentlessly so it can stop, and take the empty tears with it. Even when I do it. But the new tactic is to make everything bad, be the fault of the other side, so you can keep doing the bad stuff and not feel guilty. Democrats want to attack anyone who isn't on their side with angry mobs, and this was even called for by the "leadership", but republicans did something equally as bad at some point, so it's all good.

Acting like adults in adultland isn't an option anymore. And when you get backed into a corner, just say you are a dick, and nobody can admonish you for anything. It's like taking the zero on life. No accountability, no recourse to the law, just do whatever makes you feel good and fluck everyone else.

In the old days, you had the same rights, but yours ended where others started. meaning you can't do anything you want, if it bothers others. You have to take their rights into account. We called that "being civil". now the only thing civil, is the rumblings of a civil war.
edit on 15-10-2018 by network dude because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5

log in

join