'you insulted me, well then i win because thats ad hom'
I've largely excised them from my vocab, because it's a signal that the person speaking is likely an insufferable reddit-atheist midwit if they're going on about fallacies
You can thank Atheists and their love of debate club style arguments getting control of most Leftist discourse in the 2000s for that.
You can even see it happen in real time if you watch all those famous debates with creationists and the reactions to them, as people just started saying "strawman" and considering it a won debate.
Exactly. I only see logical fallacies brought up by leftists, and they always misapply them.
Calling attention to the fact that somebody criticizing a politician was perfectly fine with the same behavior when it was someone that shared their beliefs is not whataboutism.
Forgive me guys, what is the correct response to the whataboutism foil? Because I have trouble explaining their worldview is tarded top to bottom and explaining uninquisitive redditor faggots.
“Whataboutism,” as I understand it—and it’s difficult because I think people use it retardedly more often than they use it well—is theoretically accusing someone of deflecting. You’re saying that they can’t argue on the merits, so they tried to switch the topic to something that may look relevant but isn’t. If Vance had brought up an AG from 50 years ago, it might be valid to say “whataboutism,” because of course that AG isn’t necessarily connected to today. If Vance had brought up a single disgraced DA, it might be valid to say “whataboutism” because there’s a difference in the level of the office.
But Vance brought up the guy who is in the exact same role, now, appointed by the same party that is screeching about hypothetical abuses, who has committed, for real, exactly the kind of abuse of power they claim Gaetz might commit. It’s about as relevant as one can get, because it explicitly points out that Gaetz will be replacing someone corrupt and it implicitly highlights the hypocrisy, credibility, and general corruption issues these people have in a way that is directly connected to the role in question.
(Note that even in my initial examples, it wouldn’t always be whataboutism… if Vance could bring up a corrupt AG from 50 years ago and then connect his protege(s) and influence to the Dem leadership/AG of today, or if he had a list of a bunch of corrupt DAs that were all Dems, you could use that to build an argument that actually, the Dem AGs are way more likely to be corrupt).
Edit: ultimately, I think plenty of stupid whataboutism claims are made in bad faith, but I think some are also made by people who can’t perform second order reasoning. Here, if you’re capable of thinking through Vsnce’s statement, you end up at “the people who told me Gaetz is corrupt are actually corrupt themselves. I probably can’t trust them to tell me who’s corrupt.” But if you can’t get to that second part, then even if you don’t knee-jerk disbelieve Vance’s claim, you end up with him saying “I’m not saying Gaetz isn’t corrupt, but their guy is also corrupt.” Which is a very different message, and arguably it becomes reasonable to say that he’s engaging in some whataboutism.
I love the retarded responses.
“That’s whataboutism and not a valid response for his nomination!”
'Whataboutism' is when you point out that they do what they complain about and 100x worse.
Don't you dare bring up Iraq when I start whining about Russher! I don't need to hear about the stuff I did, I want to whine about other people!
"Whataboutism is a moral necessity."
Kurt Schlichter
'you insulted me, well then i win because thats ad hom'
I've largely excised them from my vocab, because it's a signal that the person speaking is likely an insufferable reddit-atheist midwit if they're going on about fallacies
Ok, but I think you can legitimately argue that "whataboutism is a logical fallacy" is a logical fallacy.
It wouldn't even make any sense here, unless the invoker is trying to do some weird 4D irony.
You can thank Atheists and their love of debate club style arguments getting control of most Leftist discourse in the 2000s for that.
You can even see it happen in real time if you watch all those famous debates with creationists and the reactions to them, as people just started saying "strawman" and considering it a won debate.
Exactly. I only see logical fallacies brought up by leftists, and they always misapply them.
Calling attention to the fact that somebody criticizing a politician was perfectly fine with the same behavior when it was someone that shared their beliefs is not whataboutism.
Forgive me guys, what is the correct response to the whataboutism foil? Because I have trouble explaining their worldview is tarded top to bottom and explaining uninquisitive redditor faggots.
“Whataboutism,” as I understand it—and it’s difficult because I think people use it retardedly more often than they use it well—is theoretically accusing someone of deflecting. You’re saying that they can’t argue on the merits, so they tried to switch the topic to something that may look relevant but isn’t. If Vance had brought up an AG from 50 years ago, it might be valid to say “whataboutism,” because of course that AG isn’t necessarily connected to today. If Vance had brought up a single disgraced DA, it might be valid to say “whataboutism” because there’s a difference in the level of the office.
But Vance brought up the guy who is in the exact same role, now, appointed by the same party that is screeching about hypothetical abuses, who has committed, for real, exactly the kind of abuse of power they claim Gaetz might commit. It’s about as relevant as one can get, because it explicitly points out that Gaetz will be replacing someone corrupt and it implicitly highlights the hypocrisy, credibility, and general corruption issues these people have in a way that is directly connected to the role in question.
(Note that even in my initial examples, it wouldn’t always be whataboutism… if Vance could bring up a corrupt AG from 50 years ago and then connect his protege(s) and influence to the Dem leadership/AG of today, or if he had a list of a bunch of corrupt DAs that were all Dems, you could use that to build an argument that actually, the Dem AGs are way more likely to be corrupt).
Edit: ultimately, I think plenty of stupid whataboutism claims are made in bad faith, but I think some are also made by people who can’t perform second order reasoning. Here, if you’re capable of thinking through Vsnce’s statement, you end up at “the people who told me Gaetz is corrupt are actually corrupt themselves. I probably can’t trust them to tell me who’s corrupt.” But if you can’t get to that second part, then even if you don’t knee-jerk disbelieve Vance’s claim, you end up with him saying “I’m not saying Gaetz isn’t corrupt, but their guy is also corrupt.” Which is a very different message, and arguably it becomes reasonable to say that he’s engaging in some whataboutism.
Argumentum ad logicam
They claim there's a fallacy in the argument, therefore they claim it's invalid.