Religion
Related: About this forumWhataboutism 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.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)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)Read the link. If you do, you can see what the tactic is.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)MineralMan
(147,853 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Using the word as an attempt to shut down discussion does not validate the charge.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Yeah no, doesn't work that way.
Another massive fail to justify your hypocrisy!
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Read the link before making an accusation.
Alternatively, you misunderstand the word altered.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)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)The excerpt:
1)
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.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Pathetic.
Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)It would be an absolute disaster otherwise.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)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)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)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)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.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)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)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
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You added it.
Thank you for admitting your deceit.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Would that mean that a person intends on distracting?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Pathetic.
Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)You just claim your dozens of distractions werent actually intended to be distractions and Shazam, no fallacy! It doesnt matter that youve 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
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)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)We have records of changes in Biblical texts going back thousands of years. I guess it's only bad when atheists do it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You still haven't pointed to it.
Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)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.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Of course then he just says you're "misframing" when you quote his own words back at him.
Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)Mariana
(15,174 posts)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)...
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Understood.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...and it's your apparently preferred mode of discourse...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302103
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302106
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Is intent required?
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...regardless of intent.
What-About Intent?
What-About China?
What-About, What-About, What-About...
All day long...
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)I suggest further research.
Find a definition of the fallacy that refutes mine.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...in the hopes to prevent and avoid future train wrecks of what-about-ism by others.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)acknowledge your mistake.
Intent is critical.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)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)No mention of intent in this one.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning
trotsky
(49,533 posts)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:
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)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)...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)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)Please explain your intent, and how what you did there was NOT whataboutism.
Go ahead. We're waiting.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Which is why I run a re-education camp in my basement to fit in with the neighbors.
MineralMan
(147,853 posts)I will do as I choose.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)The Red Queen?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Hold yourself to the same standard you hold others.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I can understand why you'd rather not answer.
MineralMan
(147,853 posts)and my own observations. I will also notice when someone literally writes "what about" while engaged in whataboutism:
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)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
MineralMan
(147,853 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)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)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)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)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)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.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)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)You string yourself up and pull the lever. Wow.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)But your own cited source refutes what you concluded.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Jesus Christ gil.