Needs “Putler” on there
What the fuck is happening rn, why does this random response to me have so many upvotes? I assume it’s just some random lemmy bug???
So how many times per day do we have to fill the full card for a bingo?
I hate how liberals can create a meaningless label like whataboutism and then repeat it endlessly until it becomes an argument for them. Most of these labels were created because they are too lazy or ignorant to counter argument. Their debate capabilities rival that of a child.
Pretty much, liberals never engage an argument in good faith. Their goal is always to shut down discussion whenever they see a point of view that’s not sanctioned by the CIA. It’s rather amusing how the same people who bemoan lack of freedom of speech in evil authoritarian regimes like China are actively censoring any dissenting opinions that run contrary to the state propaganda of their own regime. Zero self awareness there.
That’s a logical fallacy not a meaningless label. Do you know what a straw man argument is? Whataboutism is like that, it’s a debate tactic people use in arguments. It’s called a fallacy because it doesn’t actually settle arguments but instead uses poor logic to make it appear that the person using it is winning.
To use one of the rights favorite whatabouts.
Trump is a traitor. Saying well what about Hunter Biden doesn’t make Trump less of a traitor, but instead tries to derail the argument and make it about Hunter Biden.
Whataboutism
Exposing hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy. A person that engages in debate in good faith will not use hypocritical statements, at least not intentionally. Hypocrisy must always be pointed out to construct a serious and scientific understanding of reality.
There’s a difference between exposing hypocrisy and trying to change the subject to derail a conversation.
Trump can be a traitor and Hunter Biden a coke head, both of these things can be true. Bringing up Hunter’s coke problem every fucking time Trump’s crimes get mentioned is whataboutism.
It is a form of intellectual dishonesty, like a strawman. i.e. a logical fallacy.
A correct example would be to say that Both Trump and Hunter Biden should be held to the same standard. What people point out when liberals screech whataboutism is that the west holds itself to a different standard than its adversaries. The same way a legal system has to apply law in a consistent fashion, countries must be held to the same standard as well. If people in western countries are outraged by other countries doing the same thing the west does, then they should fix their own countries first before pointing fingers at others. It’s really that simple.
There are some paranoid levels of thinking in some of that stuff. Like when a person thinks someone is a “x foreign country spy” because they disagree. It’s possible for people to break out of that mode of thinking, but when they are in that mode, it’s next to impossible to get through because everything you say that is in disagreement is “because you are trying to deceive them.”
Liberals claiming someone is doing whataboutism seems like a component of this thinking, with a belief that the one doing the “whataboutism” is attempting to deceive. But although it’s (probably? I haven’t analyzed it in enough depth to say with certainty) possible for someone to deceive in that way, it’s also possible to compare two things for a variety of rhetorical purposes that have nothing to do with dishonesty. Such as pointing out the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world if someone tries to say x foreign country is “authoritarian” in contrast to the US being “free”; that’s not whataboutism, it’s a factual point that undermines the narrative of the US having some kind of greater moral standing from which it can properly judge other countries.
If anything, I would say imperialists, liberals, tend to be more engaged in actual whataboutism, even if unconsciously. Like if you try to point out something fundamentally wrong with the US, claiming that alternatives are way worse. Which in that regard also seems to be in bed with doomerism (or more formally maybe, capitalist realism).
Oh yeah I’ve noticed that as well, it’s absolutely inconceivable for these people that somebody could genuinely disagree with them. If you have a contrary opinion that must be because you have some secret agenda. It’s kind of funny to unpack to be honest because what are they even saying there. When they say you’re shilling for the see see pee or whatever, they’re still acknowledging that you ultimately prefer that system. Yet, according to them, your view should be dismissed because anything that’s not western liberalism is somehow evil.
The whole whataboutism thing is fundamentally a logical fallacy. It’s basically a rhetorical device to create a double moral standard for yourself and your adversaries. Why should others be held to a higher standard than one holds themselves, it doesn’t make any sense.
I think when they say people “shill for the ccp” what they mean is “you accept payment from this evil bad country in order to lie for them.”
It’s a moral statement. It both dismisses the argument from the “ccp shill” while also reinforcing the idea that the west alone cares about morality at all. It is such a common argument because it doesn’t just allow someone to ignore their opponent, but also soothes them, insisting that they are on the “right side of history” and the only people who disagree with them are cartoonishly evil, doing things they know are wrong just for the money.
I think it’s because the programming cuts off the ability to see that the programming isn’t actual education nor does it encourage thought, but quite the opposite. So if someone disagrees it’s because they have different programming and that is the only explanation. It’s all brainless knee-jerk reaction.
Missing “totalitarian,” “red fash,” something or other about Tibet, and of course no food holodomor
I think so? I’ve been blind before but I thought I remembered “agenda” being on there too.
No “West Taiwan?” No Tiananmen? No accusations for accusations of being a bot? Smdh this bingo lacks content.
