lets not go far into semantics, that can be a discussion for another thread. now listen close class is in session..
I don't care if you address other post since that has nothing to do with whataboutery, but it is the content within it that is. Secondly and in case you didn't notice, yes I was talking about you as well as others that want to say something similar along these lines; "but what about Waters this and that she is just as worse etc" That is whataboutism, but you're to ignorant to realize that. The fact is you and friends is pulling at straws comparing Waters with Trump which is not only a whataboutery argument, but a faulty comparison.
You can try all you want to sugar coat and for the record, everyone here is cringing at you.
No dude. Whattaboutism is when you accuse another of possible hypocrisy to discredit a claim without addressing the underlying logic behind it. When you manage to address a claim (or at least feel enough that your reply managed to refute it) and point out possible hypocrisy after the fact. That is, what it is. Pointing out hypocrisy. The big difference and the important differentiator that makes one a fallacy and the other not is the fact that one act addresses the original claim/logic. As simply pointing out hypocrisy in itself does not address/refute anything.
Anyone is free to debate me on this if they feel my understanding of logical fallacies cringe-y. But I’m confident that I can defend my correct definition and understanding of it. I’m not sure you can do the same, tbh.
And semantics are actually important in this scenario as the specific differences matter and an incorrect understanding of a fallacy could cause you to call out fallacy where none existed. <— this is a big deal.
I can’t, of course, speak for others. But if they did commit Whattaboutism, that is on them, not me.
For the record, I intended to be combative as well. Sorry about that. But I feel that if I didn’t coax into a discussion, you’d just throw another ill-used meme at me. Personally, I can take a nice ribbing. But I’m kinda anal about certain things (use of logical fallacies being one).
But you are right, let’s not get aggressive here as it achieves nothing and if you would allow me to explain why I even bring this stuff up: It is because I AM anal about certain things. One of them is logical consistency and intellectual honesty. I feel certain ppl split hairs and use arbitrary and self/media defined qualifiers to differentiate the bad actions of one person that they do not like from their own actions or from the actions of others they do like. Such as when they think Trump’s actions need to be held at a higher standard simply because he is President but when pressed on why, most would provide sketchy or not clearly defined, possibly biased criteria.
This creates a double standard, an inconsistency of logic and a subjective approach to accountability. I feel that the media has basically convinced certain ppl that hypocrisy is ok for as long as it helps them hate the person they are told to hate. Of course, I could very well be wrong. I am willing to discuss my point, that is why I post. And I would love it if we would all do it with respect towards each other’s beliefs.
All-in-all, I am just trying to understand their thought process (I believe that ppl are mostly good, rational and logical individuals, that is why I refuse to believe this is simply an emotional reaction) as I honest to goodness do not get it and that is why I ask.
Last edited by DrDoomz - on 06 November 2018