when did this become an accepted """fallacy""" in academia??
Genuinely how are you supposed to understand ANYTHING without comparing and contextualizing it in the boader reality of the material world?
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
muh "What-Aboutism"
EFL people can't argue nor get into philosophy, if you're arguing in English don't expect receiving any kind of insight on that matter
Strange considering there’s an entire school dedicated to it. Curious!
Because it doesn’t mean anything, it’s just justification of your personal grievances.
By your logic wouldn't self defense be an invalid argument as well?
>"You killed him!"
>"What about him attacking me?"
>"Fallacy!"
That's not whataboutism, whataboutism is when you bring up an entirely different/unrelated issue.
>"what about isn't whataboutism"
That makes even less sense?
"whataboutism" is a fallacy when a person brings up some random bullshit that isn't relevant to the argument at hand. That doesn't mean you can't actually bring up something that's actually relevant/points out hypocrisy, in that case it wouldn't be a "whataboutism"/fallacy.
>If you say something dumb/false it's a fallacy
Yeah, but it's not whataboutism. If we're talking about America's incompetence in the war in Afghanistan and you bring up "what about when America won in WW2?" That's more a composition fallacy.
Or if you say "I give to charity." And I say "But what about Saturday when I visited you. I didn't see you give to charity then!" That is more an anecdotal fallacy (using one anecdote in isolation to prove an argument having little to do with the particular anecdote).
Just because something can be used in a fallacious manner doesn't necessarily mean it's a fallacy.
None of your examples fit what "whataboutism" is typically defined as.
>If we're talking about America's incompetence in the war in Afghanistan and you bring up "what about when America won in WW2?" That's more a composition fallacy.
Sure, but then if you go "what about Russia's incompetence in Afghanistan!" then that's whataboutism. You avoid all criticism by bringing up something else entirely that is no longer relevant to the point being made.
No that's a valid point. Hence why my real opinion on the matter is Taliban stronk not America weak (although other things tell me America is getting weaker).
NPCs hate being asked to think abstractly or even conceptually
Any appeal to a consistent standard immediately turns on stress centers in their brain as their entire conceptualization of their own intelligence is built off their adherence to consensus thinking.
In a real sense when you apply logical critique to them you are descriptions their gods in much the same way Socrates did in Athens
This is true. Whataboutism is context defense. They aren’t able to justify what they think so they must find some workaround that allows them to evade being put into logical traps and exposed as inconsistent.
The way you counter this is by pointing out context and their personal values which you can then say “well what you’re saying isn’t consistent with how you feel about other things, you’re lack of logical consistency calls into question the premises you use.”
Like that.
>when did this become an accepted """fallacy""" in academia??
Since forever
it's the result of American academia becoming compromised by MIC money, there's a reason it always gets brought up in response to any and all criticisms of the US empire
Since when?
The entire notion that there is a finite list of common logical fallacies which can be identified as instances of one fallacy or other and in the same stroke dismissed entirely is extremely dumb.
Human thought is remarkably complex, it does not fit in little boxes.
Everyone who uses such terms as
>argument by authority
>red herring
>moving the goalposts
>whataboutism etc.
outs themselves as stupid.
I half agree with your post but half not. Pointing out someone has "moved the goalpost" is a good way of pointing out your opponent is losing the argument, or lacks a good grasp in what he's arguing about.
*trust the experts*
*science says*
*To encourages organ donation in some European nations, authorities have decided to enroll citizens in the system automatically...*
"You murdered children."
"B-BUT THIS OTHER DUDE ALSO MURDERED CHILDREN. THAT MEANS ITS NOT WRONG FOR ME TO DO IT. WHY DONT YOU CRITICISE HIM INSTEAD?"
OP is a pinko.
If they literally do not criticize the other person, that does imply a bias. The "It's okay for them, but not for you". "Whataboutism" is just about identifying bias and noting that they do not actually have a moral disagreement with one's actions, but are simply using it as a cudgel.
This. 99% of the time someone gets called out for whataboutism it's because they say dumb shit like this.
I’ve written on this topic
are you sure?
Post it if you want to dude.
Watch closely greenhorns, I'm about to unleash a high-level argumentative technique: the fallacy fallacy, which states that an argument being fallacious does not necessarily make it wrong.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
Booyah
This is the thought process of people into "alternative" healing methods
False equivalency, nice fallacy.
moron
What's the false equivalency here?
The point is that the use of scientific method isnt that you will always make the (post hoc) best/most efficient choice/hypothesis/action, but that based on logic axioms that you have the opportunity to come as close as you can in a consistent manner.
Someone claiming they can predict the lotto by watching cloud shapes because he won once in his lifetime would be rightfully laughed as a moron. Same for other people who use pseudoscience.
>an argument being fallacious does not necessarily make it wrong.
It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, but it does mean the argument is wrong.
When the soviets pointed out that western nations also do bad things
>but you lynch Black folks
>whataboutism
I thought that was a Muslim thing
It's a modern tactic deployed by morons who dont have an argument.
>uhhh, but did you know the USA whipped Blacks?
Logical fallacies are real but they're extremely specific and technical to the point where when someone actually commits a fallacy it's extremely obvious and they're probably an idiot that's not worth debating, or they're not actually being fallacious and someone who claims you are is just being an obnoxious redditor trying to sound smart.
This video is a parody of the second point. https://youtu.be/60SG0KTi4FQ?si=ubIm4tIzQRfk62JN
Pretty much every fallacy is fake and gay.
>whataboutism
Calling for logical consistency is a good thing.
>ad hominem
Shitting on people who don't actually have they qualities they profess is a good thing.
>slippery slope
Making logical predictions as to where things are headed is a good thing
Etc.
Thanks for listening to my Ted talk
This.
>I think welfare is for lazy freeloaders and should be abolished
>What about the time you lost your job and got on unemployment?
>WHATABOUTISM UR WRONG XDDDD POINTING OUT MY INCONSISTENCY IN MY BELIEFS IS LE BADDD!!
As long as I'm forced under threat of death to pay into the system when I have a job, I will take handouts from the system when I have no job. My call for the end of government theft of my resources to pay for welfare is not inconsistent with attempting to recoup my losses when the opportunity arises.
>ITT: People misunderstanding what "whataboutism" actually is
morons using it and going in circles
It pisses me off personally because the person saying it ALWAYS assumes that I have a particular position that I never stated. Meanwhile, they never actually answer my statement. It's annoying because I am careful on what I tell people I do and don't believe in.
Recent example:
>Honest question:Do you support Trump's argument that the president cannot be sued for things he does in office?
>B-BUT WHATABOUT OBAMA?! YOU WERE FINE WHEN HE WASN'T SUED FOR MURDER!!!
Problem 1:He is assuming I am an Obama fan
Problem 2:He is assuming I am not okay with Obama getting sued
Problem 3:The topic wasn't about Obama.
Problem 4:What does Obama have to do with Trump making an argument on immunity?
Problem 5: He's clearly trying to get me to change the discussion to something more favorable and thinks I don't notice.
To avoid a whataboutism, all you have to do is address the topic while giving your comparison.
A better reply:
>Honest question:Do you support Trump's argument that the president cannot be sued for things he does in office?
>Yes, I do. No president has ever had to face lawsuits before and this time shouldn't be any different.
or
>No I don't. I like Trump, but he is clearly off on this issue.
Why would Obama get sued for murder? Wielding military power against a target selected on the basis of military intelligence is quite literally a part of the office he was elected for.
It's not about if it makes sense. It's about derailing the topic.
>It's about derailing the topic
This. People don't understand that in the discussion there is a topic and they should stick to it. Wanna talk about someone else's wrongdoings - start a new discussion.
Imagine you steal a cookie, your parents caught you red-handed and then you say "But what about my sister, she also stole a cookie yesterday!" Yeah, but you still commit theft, what your sister did doesn't excuse you in any way.
Because whatboutisms are used to deflect and derail discussions, bringing a new topic relevant to the conversation isn't a whatboutism, bringing a new topic to dodge a question is, moron.
Legal what-aboutism is an appeal to false authority, because prosecutors can decline to prosecute, basically creating a multi tier justice system