Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:25 AM Mar 2019

Whataboutism in the discussion of religion

First, what is it?

1) Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another.
2) It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Looking at the first point, intent is critical. And to establish intent, we need either an admission or repetitive behavior.
Absent either of those, we proceed to #2. In this group, the Religion Group, religious issues are given more prominence because of the nature and focus of the group, but that does not mean that we can only discuss negative behaviors as they relate to theists.
If the negative behavior being discussed is a universal human behavior, making that point is never meant to excuse the behavior, it is meant to show that religion is not the causal factor.

I bring this up because the accusation of whataboutism is incorrectly and constantly thrown out in an attempt to ignore a point being made.

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Whataboutism in the discussion of religion (Original Post) guillaumeb Mar 2019 OP
But whatabout the Chinese government? n/t trotsky Mar 2019 #1
This is your third attempt in the past several months to try and make yourself immune to the charge. trotsky Mar 2019 #2
You demonstrate what I am saying. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #4
Don't forget... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #12
LMFAO trotsky Mar 2019 #21
... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #31
And then you go ahead and use whataboutism anyhow. MineralMan Mar 2019 #3
Make your point using the definition. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #5
You mean the definition that you altered? trotsky Mar 2019 #6
A false claim. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #7
No, you have added the word "intent." trotsky Mar 2019 #19
You are still lincorrect. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #23
You altered it to carve out an exception just for yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #26
Also conveniently ignored all the examples which matched his behavior Major Nikon Mar 2019 #32
They didn't intend for the bridge to break, so everything is fine. marylandblue Mar 2019 #37
At least g-man is the one person here who understands Major Nikon Mar 2019 #48
Not reading the link? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #39
No, it's not. trotsky Mar 2019 #50
Rebuttal guillaumeb Mar 2019 #57
Quoting the same out-of-context block isn't a rebuttal, g. trotsky Mar 2019 #61
Ignoring the obvious is not refuting the facts. eom guillaumeb Mar 2019 #68
What did I ignore? trotsky Apr 2019 #71
Interesting accusation, and easily refuted. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #8
Where is the word "intent"? trotsky Mar 2019 #20
What does "in order to distract" mean? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #24
You altered it to carve out an exception just for yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #27
Convenient how that works, eh? Major Nikon Mar 2019 #49
What about when Catholics accuse Protestants of blasphemy? marylandblue Mar 2019 #38
Exactly. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #40
Theists do that all the time. marylandblue Mar 2019 #41
Where is the word "intent"? trotsky Mar 2019 #51
Yeah, whatabout that intent and repetition? Major Nikon Mar 2019 #54
Isn't it nice he just outright admits his agenda? trotsky Mar 2019 #60
At least there's loads of entertainment value Major Nikon Mar 2019 #63
There's some entertainment value Mariana Mar 2019 #66
Queue the GIF!... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #9
So you too misunderstand the term? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #11
Not in the least... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #14
So what do you say about the definition, and the link? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #15
It explains your mode of discourse perfectly... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #16
Your response explains the need for my post. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #18
Your OP should be preserved and pinned as a Public Service Announcement... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #22
Yes it should, but that would require that you and others guillaumeb Mar 2019 #25
What is your intent, when you use this mode of fallacy? NeoGreen Mar 2019 #28
Perhaps this will help. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #42
Done. marylandblue Mar 2019 #36
Fantastic sentence on that page: trotsky Mar 2019 #52
When one definition doesn't work for you, there's always others you can try to twist in your favor Major Nikon Mar 2019 #65
Literally... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #17
You are missing the essential point: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #44
So what did you *intend* to do in this thread by bringing up China? trotsky Mar 2019 #29
He already explained that. He is showing that intolerance is universal. marylandblue Mar 2019 #35
I'm not bound by your definition, Monsieur B. MineralMan Mar 2019 #10
So you will make up your own definition? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #13
Why not? You get to. trotsky Mar 2019 #30
tu quoque in evidence. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #58
I'm asking why you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #62
No, I will synthesize a definition, based on multiple sources MineralMan Mar 2019 #53
Whataboutism guillaumeb Mar 2019 #59
Yes, but why keep posting that so often? MineralMan Mar 2019 #64
Because a few here apparently do not understand that. eom guillaumeb Mar 2019 #69
... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #33
Logical fallacies are never dependent on the ability to mind read. marylandblue Mar 2019 #34
This might help: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #43
This might help. marylandblue Mar 2019 #45
Diversion. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #46
"We can infer intent even if it is not explicitly stated" marylandblue Mar 2019 #47
There's no need to infer what has been explicitly stated Major Nikon Mar 2019 #55
Misunderstanding 101 guillaumeb Mar 2019 #56
Yes, and you expressed your intent as proven by the referenced post of yours. trotsky Mar 2019 #67
I understand that you truly believe that. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #70
I believe that because it's your own words. trotsky Apr 2019 #72

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
2. This is your third attempt in the past several months to try and make yourself immune to the charge.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:34 AM
Mar 2019

Why are you spamming the group with this?

Why not just stop engaging in whataboutism?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218292752

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218295865

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
4. You demonstrate what I am saying.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:46 AM
Mar 2019

Read the link. If you do, you can see what the tactic is.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
5. Make your point using the definition.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:47 AM
Mar 2019

Using the word as an attempt to shut down discussion does not validate the charge.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
6. You mean the definition that you altered?
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:48 AM
Mar 2019

Yeah no, doesn't work that way.

Another massive fail to justify your hypocrisy!

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
7. A false claim.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:52 AM
Mar 2019

Read the link before making an accusation.

Alternatively, you misunderstand the word altered.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
19. No, you have added the word "intent."
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 12:44 PM
Mar 2019

It is in order for you to proclaim your innocence, that you had no "intent" to change the subject, but are merely trying to bring up the Chinese government every time totally legitimately.

In other words, to re-coin a Nixonian phrase: "It isn't whataboutism when guillaumeb does it."

Disgusting hypocrisy.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
23. You are still lincorrect.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 01:11 PM
Mar 2019

The excerpt:

1)

Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another.
2) It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

In order to distract implies intent.

Major Nikon

(36,911 posts)
48. At least g-man is the one person here who understands
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 09:03 PM
Mar 2019

It would be an absolute disaster otherwise.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
39. Not reading the link?
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:37 PM
Mar 2019

Pathetic.

You keep calling my post "altering", when it is contained in the actual link.

You seem unsure what altering means.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
50. No, it's not.
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 07:49 AM
Mar 2019

You altered it to provide an exception just for yourself. You now can just state that you are not INTENDING to change the subject, and boom, you're innocent.

Doesn't work that way, g. How about you just stop using whataboutism? Oh yeah, because you can't defend anything, you can only deflect.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
57. Rebuttal
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 09:36 AM
Mar 2019
Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.



https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
61. Quoting the same out-of-context block isn't a rebuttal, g.
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 10:01 AM
Mar 2019

You're smarter than this. You have to be.

Or do you think I'm just stupid? I know you've implied as much before.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
71. What did I ignore?
Mon Apr 1, 2019, 07:30 AM
Apr 2019

Argue your point. As yet, you have not. You just keep copying and pasting and don't provide any kind of actual reasoning for whatever your position is. No wonder you're never taken seriously.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
8. Interesting accusation, and easily refuted.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:53 AM
Mar 2019
1) Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another.
2) It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
24. What does "in order to distract" mean?
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 01:12 PM
Mar 2019

Would that mean that a person intends on distracting?

Major Nikon

(36,911 posts)
49. Convenient how that works, eh?
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 09:09 PM
Mar 2019

You just claim your dozens of distractions weren’t actually intended to be distractions and Shazam, no fallacy! It doesn’t matter that you’ve been called out on the bullshit as many times, you just keep claiming what you are doing is not actually what you are doing.

For further reading see...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
40. Exactly.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:38 PM
Mar 2019

What about when someone accuses someone of altering a text, when the text is there to be read, and the so-called alteration appears in the text?

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
41. Theists do that all the time.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:43 PM
Mar 2019

We have records of changes in Biblical texts going back thousands of years. I guess it's only bad when atheists do it.

Major Nikon

(36,911 posts)
54. Yeah, whatabout that intent and repetition?
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 09:27 AM
Mar 2019

Speaking of the "thread after thread" tactic,

As to the "why" of my posts on China, and the repression of theists by the Chinese Government, they should serve as counterpoint to the far more frequent posts about theists oppressing others.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=309626

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
60. Isn't it nice he just outright admits his agenda?
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 09:59 AM
Mar 2019

Of course then he just says you're "misframing" when you quote his own words back at him.

Mariana

(15,174 posts)
66. There's some entertainment value
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 01:06 PM
Mar 2019

but I must admit it gets old, watching the same show over and over again. His adoring public must be very easily entertained, to send him numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group.

NeoGreen

(4,033 posts)
16. It explains your mode of discourse perfectly...
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 12:12 PM
Mar 2019

...regardless of intent.

What-About Intent?
What-About China?

What-About, What-About, What-About...

All day long...

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
18. Your response explains the need for my post.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 12:35 PM
Mar 2019

I suggest further research.

Find a definition of the fallacy that refutes mine.

NeoGreen

(4,033 posts)
22. Your OP should be preserved and pinned as a Public Service Announcement...
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 12:51 PM
Mar 2019

...in the hopes to prevent and avoid future train wrecks of what-about-ism by others.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
25. Yes it should, but that would require that you and others
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 01:17 PM
Mar 2019

acknowledge your mistake.

Intent is critical.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
42. Perhaps this will help.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:46 PM
Mar 2019
Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.


https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
52. Fantastic sentence on that page:
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 08:00 AM
Mar 2019
Whataboutism adds a twist to tu quoque by directing its energies into establishing an equivalence between two or more disparate actions, thereby defaming the accuser with the insinuation that their priorities are backwards.


This describes PRECISELY the form of whataboutism guillaumeb most frequently employs.

Someone mentions religious intolerance? G: "WHATABOUT the intolerance of the Chinese government?"

On edit - this too:

Since the Cold War, Moscow has engaged in a political points-scoring exercise known as "whataboutism" used to shut down criticism of Russia's own rights record by pointing out abuses elsewhere. All criticism of Russia is invalid, the idea goes, because problems exist in other countries too. —Max Seddon, Buzzfeed, 25 Nov. 2014


For gil, that sentence simply changes to "All criticism of religion when it comes to the topic of intolerance is invalid, because intolerance exists elsewhere."

NAILED IT.

Major Nikon

(36,911 posts)
65. When one definition doesn't work for you, there's always others you can try to twist in your favor
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 12:32 PM
Mar 2019

Each time adding another knot to the pretzel logic employed. The idea being nobody is smart enough to realize the tactic of obfuscation is being employed. Even if they do they will never be smart enough to overcome the gaslighting.

The best part is after employing all of the cheap rhetorical tools in his bag of fallacy he wants to lecture others on the proper way to debate subjects.

NeoGreen

(4,033 posts)
17. Literally...
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 12:19 PM
Mar 2019

...it is so ingrained in your posts, I actually saved a screen shot, months ago, to make the point:



In that post, you LITERALLY write What...About...The...Chinese.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
44. You are missing the essential point:
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:50 PM
Mar 2019
Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy


Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.



https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
29. So what did you *intend* to do in this thread by bringing up China?
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 01:56 PM
Mar 2019
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218302094#post8

Please explain your intent, and how what you did there was NOT whataboutism.

Go ahead. We're waiting.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
35. He already explained that. He is showing that intolerance is universal.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 04:50 PM
Mar 2019

Which is why I run a re-education camp in my basement to fit in with the neighbors.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
62. I'm asking why you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself.
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 10:02 AM
Mar 2019

I can understand why you'd rather not answer.

MineralMan

(147,853 posts)
53. No, I will synthesize a definition, based on multiple sources
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 08:19 AM
Mar 2019

and my own observations. I will also notice when someone literally writes "what about" while engaged in whataboutism:

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
59. Whataboutism
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 09:39 AM
Mar 2019
Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.



https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
43. This might help:
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:47 PM
Mar 2019
Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.



https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
45. This might help.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:51 PM
Mar 2019

If we accept that fallacious arguments require intent, then no argument can ever be wrong, because the speaker can always say his intent is to be truthful and correct.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
46. Diversion.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:57 PM
Mar 2019
Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.


If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.



https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

We can infer intent even if it is not explicitly stated.

But the fallacy requires the argument that two wrongs make a right.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
47. "We can infer intent even if it is not explicitly stated"
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 07:03 PM
Mar 2019

Thank you. By your definition, I have inferred that you frequently commit whataboutism. By my definition, which doesn't require knowing your intent, you have also committed whataboutism. Either way, you do it a lot.

Major Nikon

(36,911 posts)
55. There's no need to infer what has been explicitly stated
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 09:29 AM
Mar 2019

Speaking of the "thread after thread" tactic,

As to the "why" of my posts on China, and the repression of theists by the Chinese Government, they should serve as counterpoint to the far more frequent posts about theists oppressing others.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=309626

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
56. Misunderstanding 101
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 09:32 AM
Mar 2019
Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.



https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

That suggestion implies intent.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
67. Yes, and you expressed your intent as proven by the referenced post of yours.
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 01:37 PM
Mar 2019

You string yourself up and pull the lever. Wow.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
70. I understand that you truly believe that.
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 04:04 PM
Mar 2019

But your own cited source refutes what you concluded.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Whataboutism in the discu...