|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
If you can’t be held accountable for hypocrisy then you’ve just avoided one more way you can be bound rationally. This is all over your head apparently.
|
|
|
|
You've changed the subject to my hypocrisy and are using disparaging rhetoric with the 'This is all over your head apparently' which is a good example of YOUR Trolling. Yep, diminish the opponent through personal attack. Right, it's all over my head, Jim. I'm just a rock that doesn't think or learn.
And you also lump me in to the evil 'left'.
Modified by eDrek at Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 10:52:33
|
|
|
|
Your allegation is that I avoid what you’re talking about by using “whataboutism” which is a silly, awkward and vague term for misusing accusations of hypocrisy according to the definition you posted. I then said that your hypocrisy is worth confronting and you now say that’s changing the subject. You’re irrational.
|
|
|
|
about what period is being referred to when America was so great that it is worth trying to return to. DC suggested it was right after WW2. I thought it might be later, late 50's or early 60's. It was just a question. Jim, you answered with 'You should talk', criticising the choice of a UK local council candidate as if this proved that 'my' country is in a state of ruin for such a thing to happen, so that ought to disqualify me from criticising the US. Leaping to conclusions, and definitely a clear case of whataboutery.
I was just asking a question about the US.
How about we all have a go at avoiding whataboutery, and dealing with the issue raised? If you don't like the issue, you can always ignore it or start another thread.
|
|
|
|
Are you kidding? I'm still waiting for all of your evidence of Fox and Breitbart taking things out of context. Remember? Where's your answer about that?
Just one example ....
|
|
|
|
Jim, can't you see what you're doing? Let me slightly rewrite your response to 13:
Are you kidding? (WhatAbout) I'm still waiting for all of your evidence of Fox and
Breitbart taking things out of context. Remember? Where's your answer
about that?
This thread is not about some thread that you and 13 had some time ago about Fox and Breitbart.
Jim, you don't stay on topic whenever you're cornered.
|
|
|
|
Anyone watching knows that you avoid rational discussion but here you're pretending I do. It's hilarious and pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Jim, have you ever knowingly or unknowingly used the tu quoque logical fallacy (aka WhatAboutism) here on this forum in a response to anyone about anything?
|
|
|
|
Here's your answer - probably.
Now here's your question -- have you ever avoided rational discussion with me and instead mocked me for trying to get you to answer me responsively?
|
|
|
|
BTW, this is another WhatAboutism - "Anyone watching knows that you avoid rational discussion"
Yeah, what about that, eh?
|
|
|
|
This must be the kind of evasion Cynthia thinks is so cool these days. Liberals! Hahahaha!
|
|
|
|
Jim,
Geez, Jim, I'm sorry not to have responded to you sooner, but maybe I have things to do in my life other than monitor this forum and respond to your demands. Who is acting childish today?
Also, you seem to believe that there is this rule where if you answer somebody’s question you get to ask one back. Well, I don’t remember reading that rule in the forum guidelines, Jim. I’d say that’s a rule you’ve created on-the-fly for your own purposes.
Additionally, and it’s kind of funny and maybe nitpicking, but you say you answered my question.
Well, the two only valid answers to my question, Jim, were Yes or No. You answered with a ‘Probably’. Come on, you cannot be the slightest bit honest about using the WhatAboutism technique when you rely on it so often? It's as plain as day, Jim.
Talk about being a hypocrite! No, you’re not a hypocrite. You’re a weasel for trying to slide out of a real answer.
I really don’t want to give you much more of my precious time, but you need to hear this for your own good.
Jim, back in the day some 20 years ago I and I believe many others thought you were the greatest voice on the forum fighting evil characters like SHP and Catweasel. You were magnificent. The great thing back then was that we all had a common enemy – Rawat, premies and premie thinking. Today, things are different. You rarely post on the Ex-Premie forum and when you do you often bring up your favorite topic, Islam.
Now, so many years later we’re posting in the Non-Rawat forum and there is no common enemy. No, it’s one side against the other in the very divisive game of politics. Jim, I think because of your forum style you make the divisiveness much, much worse than it needs to ever be. You’re a nice guy in person, but in my opinion your 20 year old forum personality is a nasty piece of work. And you are especially nasty to me. Maybe it's because I actually try to stand up to you. Of course, you're the better orator and writer. That's your advantage. But, I think you're abusing it by abusing me and maybe others.
Your posts to me are very frequently mean spirited. They are demeaning, derogatory and derisive. In fact, I would say they are hateful and spiteful.
So, Jim, you’re asking me if I mock you? Gosh, what should I say? Probably? Should I say Probably, Jim?
No, Jim, I’m just pushing back on the bullshit you are dumping on me whenever you get the opportunity, which seems like all the time. Things like:
- Liberals! Hahahaha!
- Typical
- You seem to have lost your mind
- You’re irrational
- You avoid rational discussion
- You're trolling me
- Are you lying or really so uninformed?
- Wrong as usual -- your hypocrisy is very much at issue
- Surely you can see that this makes you look like a bit of a clown, eh?
- You’re a troll, Drek. Face it.
- You are an irrational troll
- Appalling and downright bizarre how irrational you are acting
- You are either incapable or unwilling to discuss anything rationally
- What is it about logic that you don’t get?
- What do YOU know about this? Nothing
- Impossible to reason with someone who lacks both information or sincerity
Anyway, it goes on and on.
And now because I understand what WhatAboutism is and how much you use it, I feel liberated and I’m going to call you on it whenever I see it.
Jim, discussing anything with you always becomes just a frustrating mess because of your overuse of Whataboutism. How can you follow a discussion that avoids the main topic and jumps from one unverifiable accusation to another.
You send us on these impossible missions to disprove or prove something about Hillary or Bill Clinton or Obama or whomever and there is no end. You’re just purposely wasting our time because you really don’t have answers to the questions or news items that we post. You are the one who is avoiding discussion, Jim. That is more than obvious to me. Your playbook is the Russian KGB playbook with all your WhatAboutisms.
And you have got a lot of gall to ask me if I’m mocking you. No, you’re insulting me and every person on this forum on a daily basis with the nasty games you’ve been playing and I’m calling you out on it.
Jim, I’ve spent as much time as I want to spend on this.
All I will say is maybe it’s time for you to take an honest look at your behavior on this forum and possibly consider changing it for the better.
Good night!
|
|
|
|
You’re a fool, Drek. But there’s no talking with you so that’s that. Hillary indicted by November. You can find me then and say whatever. I don’t care. You’re a fool.
|
|
|
|
I said that SHP and Catweasel were evil characters. I really should not have said that about SHP. SHP was a stubborn, but sincere guy who really believed in the stuff he believed. He was not evil. And I hope he is well.
|
|
|
|
but you already knew that Jim.
eDrek has put some time and thought into his post. I didn't find it empty and rambling at all. Try reading it again, but slowly.
|
|
|
|
Not in the same way. Drek’s just a hysterical crybaby. But you’re also totally for now and forever willfully blind to your county’s slide into leftist Islamic horror. That’s pretty damn foolish in my book!
But it’s not like you’re the only one:
Modified by Jim at Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 07:12:43
|
|
|
|
Wonderful, sincere post,so elegant. Sad that it seems to fall on deaf ears. I too have pointed out many times all Jim's great work against the common enemy, before he went off the rails. I'll understand if you disappear again, but you sure are the heartfelt voice of reason around here.
|
|
|
|
I'm still awaiting an answer as to why you, and I just mean you personally with your history of being a cult member, think it's reasonable we should be asking Muslims to question their religion but not to ask Christians to question theirs.
|
|
|
|
I never said that. Never. Your question's bullshit.
|
|
|
|
well yes you did say that Jim. It's quite a long time ago now. I asked you what you thought should be happening and you said that Muslims should be encouraged to question their beliefs and I said it wasn't fair to expect them to do that if Christians weren't prepared to do the same thing and anyway they wouldn't. You responded by saying Christianity is better than Islam. And I was left to ponder what had happened to the Jim I remember from the early days who was decidedly anti religion.
|
|
|
|
Plus, you're ignoring the context of our discussion. And I've already explained many times how my thinking's changed. I agree with Richard Dawkins who has now admitted that we need Christianity as a bulwark against Islam. Find the thread and I'm sure you'll find my saying something along those lines.
|
|
|
|
Thanks! I don't believe you said that at the time, and I must have missed any subsequent discussions. I didn't know Richard Dawkins had gone soft on Christianity too. Well I haven't, I see it as a false enslavement of the soul, a mirage of brotherly unity that needs an enemy to unite against.
I take the point of a belief in Christianity being a defence against the predations of Islam but it's like an arms race. We'd be better off to de-escalate, imo. I don't think we can afford it any more.
Race and religion have become so intermingled in so many countries, I don't believe it is pragmatic any more - I know what it's like, I live in Australia but I was born in England and it would be awful if they weren't allies.
Just to stray off point - it seems to me that when England ditched it's favourable trade deals with Australia and New Zealand in favour of the Common Market that's when the tickets were bought for the Brexit woes of today. well it's obvious really, wouldn't be wanting to leave it if hadn't joined it in the first place. I don't know who was responsible for it, who profited from joining the Common Market but right from the start the cost of food went up and the quality of the butter went down, I remember that. I was young at the time and I just knew we'd ratted somebody out but it wasn't til I came over here that I realised who it was. There was a lot of poverty in New Zealand and rather fascinatingly in the long run it has served them well as they are well situated compared to most places now. Meanwhile here on the news due to the trade talks in Asia we see Malcolm Turnbull's face all the time. It's not a pretty sight. He's so darned happy, I mean he can't keep the smile off his face, the delight off his brow - he looks like a man who has received more than he could possibly have imagined.
so back to the Dark Ages, eh Jim. Let's whip up some good old fashioned religious fervour to keep the country fighting fit. Maybe the Pope will take it back about Hell and the Devil not being real - get that added incentive again.
Modified by lesley at Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 00:23:49
|
|
|
|
Lesley, your raging hatred of Christianity and absurd analogy that it's locked in something akin to an "arms race" with Islam is so off the rails I don't know what to say. Not that I haven't tried. I'll just repeat what I've said to you a million times, if you bothered to actually learn about Islam properly, you'd stop forcing this absurd and unfair comparison.
|
|
|
|
I am not comparing the religions - you're the one that does that. Every time you do I acknowledge Islam is a lot worse than Christianity.
You're the one that proposed Christianity as a bulwark against Islam - I just agreed with you.
I went on to say I thought it was better to go the other way and get less into religion altogether.
I do not have a raging hatred of Christianity and if that's what it feels like to you then you are a lot more bonded with it than I am. As I have said before I was brought up in a Christian culture and have an affection for it.
I do not believe in it tho.
What do you propose doing about all the Muslims settled in our countries? Do you think it is worth trying to find common ground with them re religious beliefs or not?
Modified by lesley at Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 17:38:31
|
|
|
|
Christianity as a "bulwark" is not the same as Christianity in an "arms race" -- I don't think I need to explain why.
As for what to do or finding "common ground" re religious beliefs, no I don't think any kind of compromise is possible. Ideas in the West deserve the Test of the West. Full-on scrutiny, discussion, criticism and ridicule where it arises. End of story. Full stop. If that offends Muslims, they need to suck it up. If that doesn't make sense to them, we need to ask ourselves how the principles supporting SuckitUpism have become so weak and obscured by politically correct and horribly misguided I'mOffendedIsm.
|
|
|
|
As evidence of Fox news presenting things out of context, I gave you the report by ofcom but you dismissed ofcom as part of the Marxist conspiracy. And now you're suggesting my apparent lack of evidence to that question justifies your lack of engagement with this one.
|
|
|
|
All Ofcom does is diss Fox. There was nothing there about distorting context. I said that at the time but you went silent. Remember?
|
|
|
|
And, btw, Wikipedia has gotten a lot better since I stopped trying to edit the Prem Rawat article. lol!
And I agree with you about Jim. He consistently uses tu quoque logical fallacy (I love Latin) when posting here, which makes it dizzying at the least and at most, a Sisyphean task.
Jim: It's no fun conversing when I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. If someone disagrees with you, your use of a hammer instead of words gets tiresome.
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 14:39:16
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree about Wikipedia now that the Rawat article has lost it's power and they aren't talking about me as being convicted by the United Nations for stealing the domain tprf.biz.
I use Wikipedia mostly to look up rock and roll bands to see their discography.
|
|
|
|
Wa wa wa, Cynthia. It's no fun conversing with you either anymore because you don't debate anymore. And here you're blaming me ... I guess whatever it takes, eh?
|
|
|
|
Modified by Jim at Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 16:02:06
|
|
|
