I used to frequent a site that I have abandoned because it turned into the posters on the left shutting down any opinions from the right with these sorts of accusations. If they didn't accuse you of "sealioning" it was "gaslighting" or "whataboutism". When they got challenged on their intolerance, they would counter with "the paradox of tolerence"; which basically says it's okay for so-called tolerant people to squelch what they define as intolerance.
The claim of Whataboutism is heavily abused by everyone. It's only a fallacy of reasoning when used to completely distract from the argument and change the subject. Not when you're pointing out that the other side is not arguing in good faith, or the original claim has no merit. (say because they are arguing that something is rare and unbelievable and deserving of scrutiny, and you're saying it's not because here are some other common examples) In fact the abuse of the term itself should be some kind of fallacy.
Any philosophy system that has a paradox is invalid. Paradoxes cannot exist. All the paradox of tolerance shows is that intolerance is the correct system.
Except that's not at all what the paradox of tolerance actually says. The people the original essay warns about are those who refuse to argue in good faith and shut down debate instead, i.e. exactly the ones who now shrill "paradox of tolerance!"
It is complete bullshit.
I used to frequent a site that I have abandoned because it turned into the posters on the left shutting down any opinions from the right with these sorts of accusations. If they didn't accuse you of "sealioning" it was "gaslighting" or "whataboutism". When they got challenged on their intolerance, they would counter with "the paradox of tolerence"; which basically says it's okay for so-called tolerant people to squelch what they define as intolerance.
These people are masters at gaslighting. The sane half of the country is stuck in an abusive relationship with a psycho.
We need to start applying that to the commies ASAP.
The claim of Whataboutism is heavily abused by everyone. It's only a fallacy of reasoning when used to completely distract from the argument and change the subject. Not when you're pointing out that the other side is not arguing in good faith, or the original claim has no merit. (say because they are arguing that something is rare and unbelievable and deserving of scrutiny, and you're saying it's not because here are some other common examples) In fact the abuse of the term itself should be some kind of fallacy.
Any philosophy system that has a paradox is invalid. Paradoxes cannot exist. All the paradox of tolerance shows is that intolerance is the correct system.
The "paradox of intolerance" is jewish pilpul
The only time I see "whataboutism" used by the left is to shut down anyone calling out their blatant double standards.
Except that's not at all what the paradox of tolerance actually says. The people the original essay warns about are those who refuse to argue in good faith and shut down debate instead, i.e. exactly the ones who now shrill "paradox of tolerance!"