How Jim uses WHATABOUTISM to derail discussions
		Post Reply	Forum

Posted by: eDrek ® 11/13/2017, 09:59:31 Author Profile Edit Alert Forum Admin Post Reply

I remember DCCultMember making a post awhile ago and all he said was 'WHATABOUTISM'.  I wondered what that was all about.  Anyway, I know now what it means.  See below a link to Wikipedia (yes, I know we all hate Wikipedia, but the definition and history seem valid.) Of interest is this: 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, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world. And here is a little bit from the section on Donald Trump: When criticized or asked to defend his behavior, Trump has frequently changed the subject by criticizing Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration, and the Affordable Care Act. When asked about Russian human rights violations, Trump has shifted focus to the US itself, employing whataboutism tactics similar to those used by Russian President Vladimir Putin. After Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called Putin a killer, Trump responded by saying that the US government was also guilty of killing people. Garry Kasparov commented to Columbia Journalism Review on Trump's use of whataboutism: "Moral relativism, 'whataboutism,' has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes. For a US president to employ it against his own country is tragic." So, what does WHATABOUTISM have to do with our little forum here? Well, at this point I'd say WHATABOUTISM has everything to do with this forum, especially by Jim.  Heck, even Pat D did one in his post titled 'woods & trees' where he goes off to discuss Saudi Arabia.  The topic was Trump claiming he believed Putin's denial of election meddling. But, Jim takes WHATABOUTISM to a new level in practically every thread.  Just take a look and it's so obvious.  'What about Hillary' or 'Hillary is going to jail'.  It's everywhere. I just wonder if Breitbart has an online training course where Jim honed this technique.  Again, the frequency of Jim's Whatboutism is astounding. Wikipedia's definition of WhatAboutism

Previous

View All Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Just one more way the left avers rationality --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 10:46:34 ) ( 153 bytes ) +2 That, Jim, seems like a Whataboutism response right there --- eDrek ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 10:51:08 ) ( 373 bytes ) +1 You seem to have lost your mind --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 11:01:46 ) ( 318 bytes ) Just down the page I asked a question --- 13 ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 13:57:53 ) ( 789 bytes ) +1 Give me a break! --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 14:04:14 ) ( 186 bytes ) +3 Another perfect example of Jim doing a Whataboutism --- eDrek ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 14:19:39 ) ( 470 bytes ) +1 You're trolling me --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 14:36:13 ) ( 119 bytes ) +2 Ok, Jim, just a simple Yes or No question for you --- eDrek ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 14:46:57 ) ( 165 bytes ) +1 Re: Ok, Jim, just a simple Yes or No question for you --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 15:46:45 ) ( 192 bytes ) BTW, this is another WhatAboutism - "Anyone watching knows that you avoi... --- eDrek ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 14:49:18 ) ( 144 bytes ) +1 I answered you. You didn’t answer me. Typical --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 18:43:12 ) ( 91 bytes ) +1 Ease up, Jim. --- eDrek ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 22:16:20 ) ( 4741 bytes ) +2 Empty, rambling posturing --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 22:35:27 ) ( 167 bytes ) +2 I'd like to make one important clarification --- eDrek ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 23:20:12 ) ( 229 bytes ) Then I'm a fool too --- 13 ( Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 01:55:01 ) ( 186 bytes ) +1 Sure you are! --- Jim ( Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 06:28:49 ) ( 591 bytes ) link Re: Bravo Drek!! --- auggie55 ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 22:52:27 ) ( 286 bytes ) Re: Give me a break! --- lesley ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 15:11:09 ) ( 239 bytes ) +1 Re: Give me a break! --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 15:48:31 ) ( 51 bytes ) +1 Re: question --- lesley ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 17:07:45 ) ( 495 bytes ) +1 Assuming that's so, that's not the same thing --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 17:33:08 ) ( 302 bytes ) +1 that's sort of an answer, Jim! --- lesley ( Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 00:03:55 ) ( 2226 bytes ) +1 Sheesh --- Jim ( Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 15:20:38 ) ( 373 bytes ) +1 and Sheesh back at you --- lesley ( Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 17:33:56 ) ( 897 bytes ) +1 Re: and Sheesh back at you --- Jim ( Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 16:55:07 ) ( 672 bytes ) Re: Give me a break! --- 13 ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 16:11:15 ) ( 345 bytes ) +1 Come on, 13 --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 19:08:58 ) ( 132 bytes ) Great post, eDrek! --- Cynthia ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 14:37:34 ) ( 528 bytes ) +2 Thanks, Cynthia --- eDrek ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 14:43:50 ) ( 282 bytes ) You're not on eggshells, just thin ice --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 15:56:48 ) ( 161 bytes ) +1 The "best" way to "win" an argument is to find an excuse ... --- Jim ( Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 16:01:33 ) ( 2 bytes )