Good article about it.

The left used the best took in the arsenal after the election, Projection.

It's a thought policing tool, so people could ignore counter arguements, which was popularized in the wake of the election. And yes, it's funny people view the hack of the DNC as an attack on our election, but ignore the fact the DNC & RNC are private entities who have no responsibility to voters. It's a joke.

also ignore the fact that it was a leak.

The only people claiming it was a leak are known to have been compromised by intelligence agencies.

Or people that understand data transmission rates bandwidth etc

Whataboutism & terms like 'left', 'right' & 'Liberal' are discussion terminating clichés that stifle genuine debate. It's annoying.

It's the same lazy attitude that changed the correct original meaning of 'irony' to something that describes coincidences that has changed the meaning of 'socialism' to mean hoping that poor people don't die of curable diseases in the world's richest economies.

America has one of the greatest socialist institutions, the NFL.

I wasn't aware that the players, coaches, trainers, concessions workers, security, etc. owned the teams.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/02/the-nfl-americas-socialist-utopia/

I get what the author is saying, but he's being incredibly loose with the term socialism. The NFL is certainly not free market capitalism, but it's even less socialism in a way any socialist would recognize. It's crony capitalism, a state-sanctioned and supported cartel. The tight connections between the state and the team owners make it closer to fascism (in the purely economic sense of the term) than either free market capitalism or socialism.

Agreed. Pure socialism is hard to find in practice. The NFL example is mainly to get people thinking.

It's crony capitalism, a state-sanctioned and supported cartel. The tight connections between the state and [companies] make it closer to fascism (in the purely economic sense of the term) than either free market capitalism or socialism.

Good comment. Compare your description to current day China.

Compare your description to current day China.

Yeah, it's pretty far on the state capitalism spectrum, which is also the direction the Italian fascists were moving. Russia is also fairly far on that spectrum, but the US itself is as well, far more than Republicans would actually like to admit.

It's kind of interesting how the two major "communist" countries ended up going in this direction. Centrally-planned economies failed for the obvious reason that their ability to plan economies was limited by the information-gathering and intelligence capabilities of a small group of central planners, when compared to the more distributed model expressed by free(ish) markets.

But communist/socialist distribution of wealth was never really the goal of those planners (except for some of the idealists in those crowds), authoritarian control was. State capitalism is just a far more efficient system for attaining and maintaining that control, which the West has also been moving towards, just from the right-economics direction rather than the left.

My go to example for "successful" national socialism/communism would be Cuba. But even this fails the objective of continuous revolution of governance.

The problem is that it's human nature to try to take advantage of a situation for personal benefit (if you won't, your successor will). Continual benevolent dictatorship is the best we can hope for.

Whataboutism is literally a form of Russian propaganda, the term came about to describe Russian tactics during the cold war.

And you know what? FUCK RUSSIA. I live here, in America. Russia can suck my hairy asshole, and any American who puts them before any other American citizen or institution can move there and fuck off.

That's right "love it or leave it". Remember that? The slogan the fucking conservatives pounded into the dirt every chance they got for my entire life? Where is that now? What the hell happened to all of the love it or leave it types I've had to hear piss and moan about America first my whole life?

Now suddenly America is the bad guy because they started looking deeper into the intelligence agency tactics for the first time in their lives? Guess what, we all knew that shit before but we still were loyal to America even when conservatives still thought America was the "good guy" cop of the world. Pathetic.

Congratulations conservatives, you finally pulled your heads out of your asses and saw the US for what it is, a war machine, bravo. Now because they finally woke up I have to sit here and watch as they attack our institutions? Fuck off.

No shit they're dirty. You don't become a super power by playing nice. I seem to remember no conservative having a god damn problem with the deep state when the towers came down. They all lapped that shit up like it was cocaine on a hookers tits.

You don't become a super power by playing nice.

American history since Teddy Roosevelt. How to become/remain a superpower.

"Whataboutism is literally a form of Russian propaganda, the term came about to describe Russian tactics during the cold war."

[citation needed]

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9]

Thanks.

So the term is a contemporary literary contrivance that has become synonymous with the age-old diversionary tactic known as tu quoque, or the "pot calling the kettle black" idiom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black

The Soviets may have used the tactic, and inspired the modern term, but they certainly did not invent the ploy, which is likely as old as language itself.

The Soviets may have used the tactic, and inspired the modern term, but they certainly did not invent the ploy, which is likely as old as language itself.

That's for sure.

Tu quoque is more about "he did it so I can too." Justifying bad behavior because someone else did it too.

Being real this Russia shit is a joke world wide.

It sure is, and America is the butt of that joke. This country has never been mocked and laughed at internationally as much as it is today.

So they wanted Trump to be president. Is that an act of war or geo politics? The other party was hostile towards Russia, which the majority of our citizens were not.

In geopolitics there are allies and there are hostile nations. These facts are static for the most part and can't just be changed overnight. The only reason Trump 'likes" Putin and Russia is because he sold his soul to the Russians in the 90's when he went broke. He's a fool who thinks you can throw out 70 years of hostility from a foreign nation like it doesn't matter because he likes to pal around with Putin and his gangster buddies.

Any American who thinks Russia is our friend and has America's best interest at heart is a victim of propaganda. They don't care about America, anything that hurts America is fine with them. Hence the reason they supported Trump in the first place.

They want the oil pipeline through Syria and if you think for a minute they wouldn't stomp Americas face in the dirt down there to get it you're wrong. They might not even have to if they can manipulate Trump into giving them what they want. Just make him think he's at the big boy table while they stab him in the back.

Fuck Russia. America first.

This country has never been mocked and laughed at internationally as much as it is today.

Bullshit... Americans were just too self-centered to notice it.

Bullshit... Americans were just too self-centered to notice it.

Some were maybe? Personally I have no illusions about how Americans are perceived globally having traveled and spoken to people outside of the US.

During the Bush years for example the US looked like the greedy, lying, imperialist war machine it was. But even at this low point other countries feared the US.

Now, with this absolute joke of a clueless bag of shit we have in office we aren't even feared anymore. We're a laughingstock. Big difference.

'Love it or leave it' was used as a distraction / excuse for invasions and government policies, over and over again. I'm not letting my patriotism be hijacked to support government power.

welp, I hate to say it but if you're American and have ever paid a stitch of taxes your patriotism was hijacked long ago.

Lolwut

Whataboutism is literally a form of Russian propaganda, the term came about to describe Russian tactics during the cold war.

No, "whataboutism" is literally US propaganda.

The term did not just "come about" it was specifically invented by the US government when it was accused of committing the same acts it was accusing other nations of committing.

The term "whataboutism" was the US' way of saying "we're special... we don't have to live by the rules we apply to others".

I find it hilarious that your entire argument is based on "whataboutism".

No, "whataboutism" is literally US propaganda.

It is now, since Trump took office. He goes by the Russian playbook and uses the technique constantly.

The term did not just "come about" it was specifically invented by the US government when it was accused of committing the same acts it was accusing other nations of committing.

Not necessarily so. Many journalists outside of the US specializing in Russian politics have used the term to specifically describe the technique as a Russian "national ideology" since the cold war.

The origin of the term can actually be traced to "whataboutery" which was used in Britain and Ireland around the time of the Troubles.

The term "whataboutism" was the US' way of saying "we're special... we don't have to live by the rules we apply to others".

Imperialist war machines are special. When you have the biggest, strongest military on the planet you don't have to play by the rules. In fact you make the fucking rules. That's how the whole thing works last time I checked.

I find it hilarious that your entire argument is based on "whataboutism".

I'm not arguing shit, I'm simply stating facts about the term whataboutism. It's been widely used to describe a specific Russian propaganda technique world wide since at least the cold war.

we are not allowed to point out all the horrible crimes a very small elite have committed through our country

Which crimes? Which small elite?

Because our politicians were crooked and corrupt they were exploited by the russians.

I agree that there is a degree of shadiness that goes on in every political arena. The issue is that Russian intelligence decided to release the hacked correspondence of only ONE of our two major political parties.

I want to talk about the dnc cheating Bernie out of his nomination. He would’ve beat trump

Bernie lost by a significant margin. Democratic voters rejected him as a candidate. You have no way of knowing who would have won the general election.

This entire post IS whataboutism. The current presidential administration is mired in scandal and potentially treasonous activity and you want to draw attention to the internal affairs of the political party with zero federal governmental power.

The crimes would be WAR CRIMES, The small group of elites would be the Military industrial complex, the politicians and news casters who unanimously call for war, citing false pretext.

If we are to accept this, here's a "whataboutism" Should President Obama be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize?

I expect this comment to be downvoted, but would speak to your point -- it'll be dismissed, as so many objective facts, to stifle a collective and agreed upon narrative (Regardless of Political affiliation).

jfc that bush enemy-to-civilian ratio is fucked

Yes he should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize, this was a slap in the face to anyone who actually fights for peace. And is a prefect example of how this groups of elites tries manipulate and dictate our views

you are so wrong about Bernie. He would have absoloutely beaten Trump.

It must be nice being able to predict the future. Or was it the polls taken months before November? We learned how fallible those can be in the general.

He easily had the young vote, the black vote.

Clinton crushed Bernie among black folks, one of the reasons why she won the primary handily.

Noam Chomskkey just said

Chomsky says a lot of provocative things. He's wrong to downplay Russia's actions.

mueller was a part of the 9/11 commision, this should be all the reason anyone needs to discount anything he says

This is nonsense, but I'm sure it's a compelling argument for a 9/11 truther.

Tensions w Russia was already on the agenda before Trump, though no one wanted anything to do with it, thats one of the main reason he won, he ran as the anti war candidate

Yes, one of the Russian supported propaganda angles was that Hillary wanted WWIII because she wanted to negotiate a no-fly zone in Syria. Trump is not an "anti-war" president regardless of his campaign rhetoric.

Be above the mind games man

Irony. There wasn't a single original idea in that rambling block of text. It almost sounds computer-generated.

neo mccarthyism

the "whataboutism" defense is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from admitting personal bias. anytime anyone uses that term they're screaming to anyone with a brain that they are not only Hypocrites but don't actually care about the subject being discussed so much as who is being defamed. its extremely telling, but on the other hand it helps reveal whos a puppet and who isnt

What is hilarious to me is that 'whataboutism' accusations usually mean you (or whoever was accused) has a point.

"I don't look in the rear-view and anything behind us historically is invalid."

This ignorance to history/self-evaluation is going to pull us down even further into intellectual/logical quicksand.

WhatAboutism vs precedent. I’d like to see a legal team try to use WhatAboutism ...

what do you think precedent is?

you people are fucking absurd. It doesnt excuse one persons crimes to point out another criminal with opposite politics. Thats not a "counter argument", it's called changing the subject. So you can continue to pretend everything is great with your team. Keeping you divided into your two childish teams is the conspiracy at work here.

He admitting hes a hypocrite. That's what he's saying.

this guy is clearly hear to unite everyone.

Wrong. No one's saying a crime should go unpunished. They are saying both should be punished. It's pointing out hypocrisy.

not surprising you feel CuntyBalls to be an accurate depiction of your personality

Rather be a cunt than thick as shit.

well congrats

no, using whataboutism is for avoiding conversations, not having them. Like, "are you concerned that Trump openly asked a foreign government to interfere in the US election on TV?"

"well what about when Hillary hurr derr derr"

Im not trying to say the clintons arent evil. they are, they should be executed for any number of crimes. But that has nothing to do with the president being a fucking russian stooge, it's a separate issue

No it's the same issue. They're all evil corrupt people with nothing but money on their minds

So when someone makes a good point you call them a name. Noted.

It doesnt excuse one persons crimes to point out another criminal with opposite politics.

It is not about excusing a crime, it is about one of the fundamental tenets of western society - "equal justice". In a court, "whataboutism" is referred to as "precedent". Put simply if a rule is applied to one case, the same rule is applied to other cases of a similar nature.

If one person is allowed to do something without sanction, then any other person doing the same thing is also not sanctioned. That is the fundamental concept behind "equal justice". An equitable justice system does not punish one person for doing something while allowing others to do the same thing.

If the US did something without sanction, then it is not fair or just to punish Russia for doing the same thing. If Obama did something without sanction, then it is not fair or just to punish Trump for doing the same thing.

I doubt anyone would think it would be fair or just for a state to pick and choose who it applies laws to and who it allows to break those laws unpunished.

So, pointing out that someone else was allowed to commit a certain act unpunished is not a fallacy - it is a sound legal argument upheld by most western courts that are based on the western concept of "equal justice".

The people who cry "whataboutism" when Russia refers to the US' past acts are the people who do not believe in "equal justice". They want to live in a world where some people are treated unfairly. They do not care about justice. They care about punishing their opponents whether it is just or not - and they try to disguise it behind bullshit "logical" arguments.

let me guess, when you get pulled over for speeding you start whining about all the people who were also speeding and how they should be in trouble instead of you.

I personally don’t equate justice with equity, otherwise punitive damages would be illegal; the ruling wouldn’t be equal to the damages inflicted.

Precedents don’t just apply to court rulings either. What is litigated is just as important as what isn’t litigated. Which is why people were so pissed off about the whole email thing. It was the fact that she circumvented federal policy and procedure, endangered national security, was hacked, and suffered no consequences. It was the fact that she was allowed to have assistants select emails that belonged to the state before presenting the evidence. It was the fact that the FBI ruled these acts as negligent rather than criminal, overstepping it’s boundaries. Could you imagine if we let executives select what emails they hand over to the court in, say insider trading scandals?

One could argue that the precedent she set is, so long as you’re a part of a protected class, the rules don’t apply to you. And the FBI has the right to infer intent and decide whether or not charges are brought against someone who violated the law.

“Whataboutism” goes wrong with inequivalent comparisons. Injustices are often attributed to a single bias, when in fact, many factors are at play, especially in the case of identity politics and social justice. For example, race and socioeconomic status are two different concepts, and when folks state causal effects on, say, crime rates or access to education, rather than isolating the variables and assessing effects independently, they’re straying from the scientific method, and detracting from the validity of their argument.

Pointing out cognitive dissonance isn't whataboutism. As it isn't a logical fallacy. Not every sentence that starts with "What about....." is whataboutism.

Using a "What about...." statement to deflect, create a false equivalence, or excuse ones actions is whataboutism. This is a logical fallacy.

dude try arguing the issues instead of vomiting up some propaganda and calling it "pointing out cognitive dissonance". You cant have an intelligent conversation without making some fucking attempt to engage with what the other person is saying.

When did I ever say I was using it instead of debating an issue? I've never had a conversation with you. Why would you state I can't have an intelligent conversation and don't engage in the conversation?

You should calm the fuck down.

saying "what about x" because you dont want to talk about the original subject. thats whataboutism. it doesnt make any less of a dick move if you call it "pointing out cognitive dissonance"

saying "what about x" because you dont want to talk about the original subject. thats whataboutism.

Yes, that would be whataboutism. Exactly like I said it would be in my original comment.

Using a "What about...." statement to DEFLECT, create a false equivalence, or excuse ones actions is whataboutism.

Added emphasis.

saying "what about x" because you dont want to talk about the original subject. thats whataboutism.

Yes, that would be whataboutism. Exactly like I said it would be in my original comment.

Using a "What about...." statement to DEFLECT, create a false equivalence, or excuse ones actions is whataboutism.

Added emphasis.

When did I ever say I was using it instead of debating an issue? I've never had a conversation with you. Why would you state I can't have an intelligent conversation and don't engage in the conversation?

You should calm the fuck down.

What about this term whataboutism?

What about how The Donald literally blocks anyone who tries to disagree? Isn't that censorship? Shouldn't we be outraged the largest congruence of the right on a top 10 website is censored to be pro Trump instead of pro conservative values?

THAT is whataboutism.

I feel like its a bit ridiculous that state that whataboutism is a Russian invention, like its a fact. Like no one ever used this tactic in a debate before soviet Russia. Its fricken insane man.

I would normally use it when someones challenging me on the finer points of a completely meaningless issue, and I just think I cannot believe you are worried about this when ... i dunno, pick something corrupt the clinton campaign did. Theres lots.

You are correct. It's a tactic that's been used by the conservative side of the spectrum for a long, long time (since first Bush at least).

If anyone wants to talk about election meddling I want to talk about the dnc cheating Bernie out of his nomination.

Whatabout sasquatch?

It all really comes down to this : if trump is so great, then why does he and his supporters have to bring up hilary every time someone points out how trump fucked up or did something that was obviously corrupt? Why not just answer the question? Can any of you remeber the last administration that deflected to past political opponets that haven't held public office in years the way the trump administration does? Has it ever happened? No. Absolutely not. The only explanation is because this adminstration can't handle the scrutiny. They know they're corrupt. They know that the things they do are not because of the will of the people. So they have to distract woth attacks on anyone that says anything mean or truthful about them.

I know the media has a bias. All media does. But when the media does their job and reports about things like keeping immigrant children in camps and drugging them, the appropriate response is not to lie about how past adminstration did the same thing, and before that lie and say that it isn't happening at all. That's just one example, but this same scenario is played out daily. And anyone in the media that accurately reports thus administration's actions is attacked as being the "enemy of free speech". And they want to act like no president has ever had this level of criticism. BULL. FUCKING. SHIT. For 8 years fox news, the Mainest of mainstream news, said that Obama was a gay Kenyan member of the Muslim brotherhood that needs to be hung because he is gonna take our guns and put us all in FEMA camps. And that's just what I remeber off the top of my head. For God's sake, obama was the first president to use twitter. And you know what the first response to his first tweet was? "WELCOME TO TWITTER N****R!!" and the terrible things they said about his wife being a man and how his daughters should "be lynched" on social media. No. Trump has it easy compared to obama. But he is thin skinned and his ego is so fragile that he can't stop himself from acting like an agry retarded 12 year old boy.

So why am I saying all of this in this thread? Because whataboutism is used to gloss over all of this and so so so much more. It's a tactic that forgetful people use to try to revise and rewrite history. That's what it is. And anyone who has the sense they were born with can see thru it.

Let me ask any of you this. Without bringing up hilary or obama or anyone else, explain to me why you're ok with trump, who is a republican, who are supposed to be fiscally responsible, adding over a trillion to our national defecit with tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by the middle and poor class? How do you justify adding over a trillion to our defecit and none of us getting anything at all for it?

Also, a second question for the values voters In here. As I am somewhat of a values voter myself. Again, without bringing up the clintons, obama, or whoever. If you believe in family and Christian values and you support trump, how do you rationalize it. Yes I get that it's his buisness where he parks his penis. But us values voters believe that someone in his position needs to be morally straight. So with that being said, how do you rationalize trump being divorced 3 times, sleeping with a porn star while his wife is in the hospital just after giving birth to his newborn son, paying women to not Kalkaska about ok al k heir extramarital affairs with him, and now it looks like paying for a model to have an abortion (allegedly)? Knowing this, how are we supposed to continue to support him?

It all really comes down to this : if trump is so great, then why does he and his supporters have to bring up hilary every time someone points out how trump fucked up or did something that was obviously corrupt?

because its not about trump, its about the hypocrisy of the user trying to tear down someone they dont like while turning a blind eye to the same (or worse) actions from someone they like.

its to point out that they dont really care about separating kids from parents or building a wall. they dont really care about sexual harassment or racism. What they really care about is demonizing someone they dont like.

That's not 100%. Not at all. Yeah I asked some hard to answer questions in my post. Or at least, hard to answer for certain people. But those are question you should be asking yourself before you decide to rabidly support someone. If someone isn't worthy of your support, why continue to support them?! For "liberal tears"? Are liberal tears really worth sabotaging yourself for? Also, asking questions like "why did trump drastically change the rnc's platform with regards to russia?" Is not tearing someone down. I didn't call anyone a name. I didn't accuse anything. So why change the subject to make it about how hilary Colluded with russia? It's not relevant to the question. And yet that very same conversation played out today on this sub. The original question went unanswered with the thread devolved Into squabbling and posting of fake news from both the left and the right. It's sensless.

That's not 100%. Not at all.

nothing is

Yeah I asked some hard to answer questions in my post. Or at least, hard to answer for certain people.

Not really though, I answered your question pretty easily. Sure there will be extreme enthusiasts who will blindly follow anything but thats not the norm and its also not unique to trump supporters - wait, is what I just said a whataboutism? Shit, it is! I asked what about the ones who blindly follow the other side, so now you can shut down the whole argument....or you can ask yourself why you left out that part of your point and realize why crying "whataboutism" as a retort only makes you look bad.

But those are question you should be asking yourself before you decide to rabidly support someone. If someone isn't worthy of your support, why continue to support them?! For "liberal tears"? Are liberal tears really worth sabotaging yourself for?

Youre making a lot of assumptions. There arent that many people who rabidly support trump (or any politician for that matter), and trump hasnt done anything that doesnt warrant support either. I think you are confusing online personas with how people act in real life as well as your own opinions and views with what is "right." No one is sabotaging themselves by supporting trump outside of illegal immigrants (assuming any support him at all).

Also, asking questions like "why did trump drastically change the rnc's platform with regards to russia?" Is not tearing someone down. I didn't call anyone a name. I didn't accuse anything. So why change the subject to make it about how hilary Colluded with russia? It's not relevant to the question. And yet that very same conversation played out today on this sub. The original question went unanswered with the thread devolved Into squabbling and posting of fake news from both the left and the right. It's sensless.

to answer your question there are a few things at play. who ever replied to you about hilary is assuming you supported her. Did you? If you did then why do you care about Russia now? Why not when your candidate did it? If you didn't care when your candidate djd it then why are you so confused someone wouldn't care when thiers did. If youre not ok with her doing it then thats them proving why you're not supposed to assume anything.

And still you're not able to reply without bringing up hilary. You waited until the end but the whataboutism bug still got ya.

NEXT!

well i was only answering the question, it wasnt me that was bringing her up originally...besides this is for church, NEXT!

No. What I'm talking about is how suddenly suddenly the trump adminstration wanted to be closer to russia. Just out of the blue. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to move closer to russia to have the media attack them. There has to be a better way to make them look bad in the media. As it is several americans are all for anything russia.

Also, asking questions like "why did trump drastically change the rnc's platform with regards to russia?" Is not tearing someone down. I didn't call anyone a name. I didn't accuse anything. So why change the subject to make it about how hilary Colluded with russia? It's not relevant to the question.

Actually, it is very relevant to the question.

If Clinton believed closer ties with Russia were desirable, and she "colluded" with Russia to make it happen... why is it a problem if Trump believed the same thing?

It seems to me the only reason to complain is because Trump won and put the policy into effect, rather than Clinton winning and putting the same policy into effect. In other words, you're not complaining about the policy, but who got to implement it.

You're simply changing your tune because your side lost.

Aaaaaand another whataboutism fanatic. You guys are like zombies.

Removed. Rule 10

It depends on who started the conversation, because if you start by pointing out corruption in our politicians themselves and someone just answers "but Russia..." then they're the ones practicing whataboutism. I hate when people argue this way though. It keeps you from focusing on either problem and everyone just yells about which topic they're more angry about. Like when you tried discussing Bernie's policies vs Hillary's with an open mind and people were like "but nazis were socialist..." Like yes, thanks for your almost relevant comment. I guess we'll focus on that instead of discussing what I brought up in the first place.

Gaslighting is another term, I was not even really that familiar with until a couple years ago. I see left wing media gaslighting all the time, then using the term to describe how anyone on the right communicates with their constituents.

I think in part it stems from people wanting to have the law applied equally to all, so when they see someone on 'their' team being accused of wrongdoing, they are quick to point out similar wrongdoing from the 'other' team which didn't seem to be a problem at the time. More about pointing out the hypocrisy. That's not to say that the term isn't tossed around like a hot potato, used incorrectly or used to stifle a productive debate.

Having said that, productive debates seem to be far and few between on here these days.

One can and should be concerned about multiple things at the same time. Empty whatabouting is just shoddy argumentation, aiming to erase one thing thanks to your view that something else is "worse." I taught a freshman comp course and whatabouts filled their essays for the first few months. It takes a sturdy mind to admit "okay, but let's consider this too" instead of "nevermind that entirely, what about this?"

In many cases, the content of a whatabout idea is relevant for overall context on a topic, but the attempt to outright usurp the whole argument in favor of your reactionary point is always disingenuous and reductive imo.

I posted to a thread about flights being crashed and who could be behind them if it were on purpose. I said, "remember operation Northwoods". Almost instantly I had two comments which were about a paragraph long, and they both EXPLICITLY pointed out the terms "whataboutism" ...."what's with all the whataboutism nowadays..."'and "here we go with more of this whataboutism" ....I thought this was very odd as I had not heard of the term ever before that day, and was responded to very quickly by two commentors using the same wordage and tone. Very annoying and weird.

Not so weird when you remember that the term itself was invented by western governments as a propaganda ploy.

"Hey, don't talk about my side's crimes... that's whataboutism!"

Nonsense term meant to protect a weak argument from a stronger one.

Lets use the the real term, it's not " whataboutism " it's pointing out hypocrisy.

I've never understood the term (I'm aware of its function,though); if you can't say "what about", then how the hell are you going to have a discussion if you can't draw parallels?!

Simple: you can't. They might as well write "shut up", because the debate is over because you had the nerve to draw historical parallels.

Then you don't actually understand the term, I don't think.

Whataboutism is responding to a criticism of x thing by saying, "what about y thing? It's equally (whatever complaint was made about x)".

It's not a debate. It's not a discussion. It's essentially nothing more than saying "It's okay if MY guy does something awful because OTHER guy did something just as bad first."

Well, that's literally what I said. I do not understand the term, because it doesn't make sense in its context which is debates/discussions.

But yeah, you're right.

It's basically just two wrongs don't make a right. Responding to criticism of someone by saying "yeah but what about unconnected point X that doesn't have anything to do with the initial criticism" is not an argument. On this (pyramid of arguments)[https://www.google.com/search?q=pyramid+of+arguments&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Q3IAJi_ZE8Z-SM%253A%252CRclVb1o_RKMPOM%252C_&usg=AFrqEzdK4P1LsLzREeF5oYbU-u5gYllmMA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhnqTPi-PcAhUGK8AKHeo6DkIQ9QEwAHoECAcQBA#imgrc=Q3IAJi_ZE8Z-SM:] mot whataboutery is either namecalling or ad hominem or at very best contradiction.

If I say "Putin kills journalists" and someone else says "yeah, so what, lots of countries do bad things", that's whataboutery. It's dangerous because it excuses things by saying "look, over there, something else!"

No, it's basically "if it wasn't wrong then, then it isn't wrong now".

It's not like someone is saying "that guy stole an apple and was punished, so I should be able to steal an apple without being punished."

What they are saying is "that guy stole an apple without being punished, so I should be able to steal an apple without being punished" - in legal terms "precedent". It's about the equal application of the rules. It's about every person/nation being held to the same standards.

If the US can praise one dictator, then they have no moral (or legal) standing to accuse another. The US has supported some of the worst regimes this planet has seen. It has itself been responsible for many crimes against humanity. But it holds itself above the law. It refuses to be held to the same standard as the rest of the world, so no criticisms it levels at another nation hold any weight.

When the US stops committing war crimes, and accepts the rules that it applies to others will also be applied to itself, then it may cast aspersions. Until then it should fuck off.

The US has manipulated elections in Russia and around the world for decades. It has no right to complain when the same thing is done to them.

No matter how hard you try to argue for it, two wrongs still don't make a right.

Whatboutism refers to ignoring the actual topic of discussion to deflect to another issue.

In this post it's deflecting from Russia manipulating the general election to demand we do something about the DNC cheating Bernie out of the nomination. You're arguing that a foreign state manipulating our elections is less of a problem than our own politicians.

The goal with whataboutism is trying to manipulate and deflect the discussion to be about something other than what it actually is or to make a false equivalency to a different problem altogether thereby derailing any rational discussion.

Ok well I would say that yes that’s what I’m arguing. You don’t agree? If our politicians want to collude with the dnc they have much more access to significantly meddle, which was shown. Where as the Russians have what? Shitty fb ads nobody saw. Their “biggest” crime would be the expose of our politicians crimes. It’s appallingly hypocritical that we call for the heads of these Russians before we would call out these politicians corruptions that gave them this opportunity.

The machinations of political parties is entirely different than state sponsored efforts to influence an election by placing spies into that campaign and election offices or election service providers, anonymously funding third party advocacy groups and running influence campaigns on the internet to shape narratives in the press.

Politicians did end up getting exposed and the DNC leadership was completely stripped and replaced with pro-Bernie progressives. But that's an entirely separate issue than the state sponsored efforts of Russia to put their thumb on the scale of a Presidential election. In fact, it's of critical importance to find out the entire scale of what their actions have done, which assets might still be in place, and the vulnerabilities discovered that exposed our election systems to third party providers that might have employed Russian agents.

We should always be vigilant about our election systems, most especially the outside money flows and donations that go into them. Unfortunately, the current administration wants to obscure that information from the public, which in many ways increases our exposure to corruption as it relates to electioneering.

Now you're whatabouting again to talk about Israel.

I think any intervention by a foreign party in our elections should be investigated. That is a critical national security issue. I think every single dollar that flows into the election process needs to be accounted for and transparent as well. Every single PAC or 501c3 and c4 organization that is registered should be thoroughly investigated before being approved to spend money and provide a detailed account of donations being made and by whom.

As it stands that is completely anonymous and there are no limits to the amount of money corporations or private donors can make to those organizations and that poses a profound threat to the citizens of this country.

The Russia thing is not a witch hunt. That's simply a distraction from the facts we keep uncovering of Russians involved with the campaign, public admissions of collusion with Russia, revised disclosures and congressional testimony, guilty pleas, indictments, paper trails, transactions and Russian agents caught with key members of Congress, working with the NRA and others that posed as workers for an electronic voting machine company. We should absolutely be investigating these things.

Yes because you're deflecting from the original issue. I acknowledged that any intrusion by a foreign government is a threat. You keep trying to explain away or minimize the actual evidence against Russia. This isnt simple sensationalism, our intelligence agencies have been sounding the alarms for awhile now. This is a serious and legitimate threat. You're proving your point by trying to deflect from it.

People admitting to meeting with Russia and pleading guilty in exchange for immunity is not "propaganda". All this evidence was not manufactured to push a false narrative or to lead us to war. I'm all for critical thinking, but you're simply choosing to ignore the facts and and evidence in front of you and trying to deflect the conversation.

We had evidence Bush and Cheney were stovepiping information to go to war in Iraq, this is nothing like that. The thing that gave it away, outside of the bullshit intelligence about yellowcake and members of the CIA saying that evidence wasn't credible and then being outted by Cheney's chief of staff. The other factor was when the Bush administration kept trying to connect Saddam Hussein to 911 when no evidence existed showing a connection.

No, it isnt natural for them to manipulate our elections. Thats an espionage campaign and an act of aggression to interfere in our affairs. It was illegal for private citizens in Trump's campaign to meet with a foreign adversary in order to conspire and collude to release illegally obtained information in order to influence that election.

We should hold our politicians accountable, you're the one being the hypocrite here by trying to minimize the extent and threat of a spy campaign against the United States by Russia that includes public admissions, guilty please, arrests and indictments.

I think you're looking at it wrong by trying to justify or minimize Russia's actions during a campaign. You're trying to whatboutit away by changing the focus.

Making unsubstantiated allegations about Obama is more whatboutism. Claiming the mainstream narrative is false doesnt not disprove the evidence of facts. In fact, you're almost saying believe nothing even when there is proof because you cant trust it.

I don't fully trust mainstream news. I drill down to the evidence like any critical thinker should. The thing about the mainstream media is most of the commentary is simply editorialized content. I don't watch TV news with talking heads. It's all soundbites and no context. I read my news, from multiple sources, and drill down on the facts. Many times you'll see when the facts contradict the actual narrative. The evidence and sources is what matters.

You whatabouted again to something completely different than we were talking about.

The citigroup thing had nothing at all to do with anything, it was yet another thing you kept trying to bring to the discussion to deflect from the actual topic.

Jimmy Dore's talking head opinion video video doesnt disprove all the evidence. You are the one that is deluded if you think it does.

No, its a corporate entity, not a foreign entity. It has nothing at all to do with a foreign government interfering with an election and running an espionage campaign. That is far more serious. Private/public partnerships between corporations, financial institutions and the government has been going on for over 100 years. That's part of how America was built in the first place. In this case, Obama was staring down the barrel of the largest economic crash since the Great Depression and having a cogent policy when taking office was imperative to any attempt at recovering the economy. In no way is it comparable to Russia manipulating a Presidential election.

It was an American bank, Citigroup, and they are balls deep in working with the government and have been for years. At one point, former CIA directors managed Citigroup. There's tons of evidence of private/public cooperation. If FDR hadnt worked with the banks during the Great Depression, and assured the public the system was solvent and the government had stepped in to provide liquidity, the economy would have collapsed. By limiting hours and slowly opening up those banks people stopped trying to pull all their money out. We found out later the government hadnt really done anything and the whole thing was a coordinated attempt to restore the trust of the people in both the banks and the government.

Yes, an economic crisis justifies all Americans working together, especially those in American banking because they underpin the solvency of the US economy. No, it doesnt encourage banks to keep the economy down to centralize power, they are capitalists out to make money.

You keep spinning in the mud and whatabouting by deflecting from Russia. I'm done with you, you seem to want to talk about everything and implicate everyone but the fucking elephant in the room.

You're whatabouting from Russia again.

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9]

My go to example for "successful" national socialism/communism would be Cuba. But even this fails the objective of continuous revolution of governance.

The problem is that it's human nature to try to take advantage of a situation for personal benefit (if you won't, your successor will). Continual benevolent dictatorship is the best we can hope for.

It was an American bank, Citigroup, and they are balls deep in working with the government and have been for years. At one point, former CIA directors managed Citigroup. There's tons of evidence of private/public cooperation. If FDR hadnt worked with the banks during the Great Depression, and assured the public the system was solvent and the government had stepped in to provide liquidity, the economy would have collapsed. By limiting hours and slowly opening up those banks people stopped trying to pull all their money out. We found out later the government hadnt really done anything and the whole thing was a coordinated attempt to restore the trust of the people in both the banks and the government.

Yes, an economic crisis justifies all Americans working together, especially those in American banking because they underpin the solvency of the US economy. No, it doesnt encourage banks to keep the economy down to centralize power, they are capitalists out to make money.

You keep spinning in the mud and whatabouting by deflecting from Russia. I'm done with you, you seem to want to talk about everything and implicate everyone but the fucking elephant in the room.