Synagogue Shooting in Poway

[rogue06]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36785[/ATTACH]

No moron. I'm pointing out how horrible of a question that was by putting the shoe on the other foot.

Now...

Charles.jpg

[rogue06]

"Whataboutism" is a way of pointing to an attempt by someone to divert the discussion from the Y by saying, "well X did it too!" Such arguments have no merit. The fact that X did something immoral/illegal in no way justifies Y doing the same thing.

And hypocrisy can ONLY be shown if the person objecting to Y did not object to X. But what usually happens is someone objects to Y, they are labelled "liberal" (or conservative when this is done by someone from the left) and then the argument is made that since "liberals" (or conservatives) didn't object to X, the person in question cannot object to Y without being hypocritical. This has happened repeatedly. It looks like this:

Carpe: I think what Y did is immoral/illegal
Responder: What about X?
Carpe: You're engaging in whataboutism.
Responder: You're being hypocritical.
Carpe: You can only accuse me of hypocrisy if I did not object to what X did and am now objecting to Y.
Responder: Liberals (or the MSM) didn't object to X and you're liberal.
Carpe: What "liberals" did has nothing to do with me; I am an individual, not a group. I objected to X and I object to Y, so there is no hypocrisy, which means you're engaging in whataboutism
Responder: Whataboutism is just a way to dodge your hypocrisy.
Carpe: Right. I think I'll get off this bus.
Responder: Dodger!

That people don't see this truly amazes me. It's really rather simple.

Much shorter and more accurate answer: Whataboutism is a transparent ploy to excuse and hand wave off blatant hypocrisy and sanctimonious double standards.

[Cow Poke]

Much shorter and more accurate answer: Whataboutism is a transparent ploy to excuse and hand wave off blatant hypocrisy and sanctimonious double standards.

I wish I had said that!

"Whataboutism" is simply a way of defending hypocrisy while trying to sound intelligent.

[Cow Poke]

I note that you do not support your case which is also rather difficult to do.

It's not that it's difficult to do, Charles, it's that it's really tiresome sometimes responding to your pettiness.

[rogue06]

I wish I had said that!

An obviously shorter answer but mine was mosterest accurate.

[Cow Poke]

An obviously shorter answer but mine was mosterest accurate.

Yes. Yes, it was.

[mossrose]

The biggest example of whataboutism is when someone brings Trump into every single discussion about anything and blames him for every ill on the planet, including the shooting at the synagogue.

[Mountain Man]

"Whataboutism" is a way of pointing to an attempt by someone to divert the discussion from the Y by saying, "well X did it too!" Such arguments have no merit. The fact that X did something immoral/illegal in no way justifies Y doing the same thing.

And hypocrisy can ONLY be shown if the person objecting to Y did not object to X. But what usually happens is someone objects to Y, they are labelled "liberal" (or conservative when this is done by someone from the left) and then the argument is made that since "liberals" (or conservatives) didn't object to X, the person in question cannot object to Y without being hypocritical. This has happened repeatedly. It looks like this:

Carpe: I think what Y did is immoral/illegal
Responder: What about X?
Carpe: You're engaging in whataboutism.
Responder: You're being hypocritical.
Carpe: You can only accuse me of hypocrisy if I did not object to what X did and am now objecting to Y.
Responder: Liberals (or the MSM) didn't object to X and you're liberal.
Carpe: What "liberals" did has nothing to do with me; I am an individual, not a group. I objected to X and I object to Y, so there is no hypocrisy, which means you're engaging in whataboutism
Responder: Whataboutism is just a way to dodge your hypocrisy.
Carpe: Right. I think I'll get off this bus.
Responder: Dodger!

That people don't see this truly amazes me. It's really rather simple.

It's more like...

Liberal: [Republican politician] is accused of X, Y, and Z and should be impeached!
Conservative: But [Democrat politician] is demonstrably guilty of X, Y, and Z. Why aren't you clamoring for their impeachment?
Liberal: Whataboutism!

[Bill the Cat]

I agree. I really don't care how honorable a man is or what his religion is. These men took up arms against this country to defend slavery.

Have you ever seen Free State of Jones? Many took up arms because it was illegal in the Confederacy for them not to. Refusing to serve in the Confederate Army would result in forfeiture of land, home, and goods. Many saw it as their duty to defend their state (The country was more united STATES than UNITED states back then) against a conglomeration of Northern states that they saw as refusing to let them govern themselves. Solely claiming they were defending slavery is far too simplistic.

After the war, to hasten healing, the north elected to NOT try and convict them,

It was actually a key part of the surrender agreement.

but it does not alter the fact that they led a rebellion against their own country

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

In the eyes of the South, the disagreement with the North was sufficient enough to warrant another Declaration of Independence.

that resulted in massive loss of life in defense of an immoral institution.

Again, this is a complex situation that can't just be waved off as "defense of an immoral institution". Duty and honor to state was very important back then. Imagine if the South had won. What would have been the consequences for refusing to serve?

They deserve, IMO, no public honors.

Do Napoleon or Marie Antoinette deserve public honors? Walking through Versailles and talking to the museum attendants helped me see my city's Monument Avenue in an entirely different light. That they were on the losing side or stood for immoral principles doesn't change their value. History deserves to be honored and memorialized in its context.

To give them such only serves to a) slap every black person in the face when they have to see these monuments, and

Even the blacks who descended from black slave owners? Those blacks who came to the states in the 20th century? Honoring the past in context does not slap anyone in the face that did not directly experience it.

b) encourage others to consider similar actions or to admire those that do.

This is the same nonsense that blames Trump for this synagogue shooting.

It was only a couple of decades ago that Charlie Daniels had a hit song (in the south) called "The South's Gonna Do it Again!"

Again, this feeds into my comment about in-grouping Southern rednecks. The song has nothing to do with the Civil War or slavery and everything to do with identifying yourself as a part of the "Country Boys".

I know of no other context in which traitors to the U.S. are given honorifics by the very country they took up arms against.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold#Tributes

[seer]

That is a misdirect. This was the culture then and nearly 80 years before the civil war. They were not men confronted with the choice who chose for slavery. Likewise, those in the time of the civil war face a different sort of world and our capacity to fully ubderstand their choices is also limited. But this is now, and slavery is almost unversally abolished, and there is little left to honor. As historical figures we can try to understand them. But we cant accept or confirm their choice to support the institution of slavery, which above all other factors is what the civil war was about.

Jim

Jefferson knew that slavery was wrong in his time, but yet kept his slaves. I spoke of Lee's and Jackson's military ability and Christian faith, and honor those. There is no logical reason to tear down their statues, any more than to tear down Jefferson's.

[seer]

I agree. I really don't care how honorable a man is or what his religion is. These men took up arms against this country to defend slavery. After the war, to hasten healing, the north elected to NOT try and convict them, but it does not alter the fact that they led a rebellion against their own country that resulted in massive loss of life in defense of an immoral institution. They deserve, IMO, no public honors. To give them such only serves to a) slap every black person in the face when they have to see these monuments, and b) encourage others to consider similar actions or to admire those that do. It was only a couple of decades ago that Charlie Daniels had a hit song (in the south) called "The South's Gonna Do it Again!"

I know of no other context in which traitors to the U.S. are given honorifics by the very country they took up arms against.

It was the North Carp, that invaded the South not the other way around. And they were in keeping with the DoI: When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[Cow Poke]

Ya fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb....

[guacamole]

It's more like...

Liberal: [Republican politician] is accused of X, Y, and Z and should be impeached!
Conservative: But [Democrat politician] is demonstrably guilty of X, Y, and Z. Why aren't you clamoring for their impeachment?
Liberal: Whataboutism!

That's a nice demonstration of the fallacy. Whether or not a person thinks the second politician ought to be impeached or not has no bearing on whether or not the first politician should be impeached. It's an extension of the ad hominem fallacy in that the charge of hypocrisy, either the first or the second (because there are two charges of hypocrisy here), is irrelevant to the first claim.

Non-fallacious sequence:

Speaker 1: Politician 1 should be impeached for x, y, and z.
Speaker 2: You have not legally proven the case for x, y, and z; therefore, politician 1 should not be impeached.

[Mountain Man]

That's a nice demonstration of the fallacy. Whether or not a person thinks the second politician ought to be impeached or not has no bearing on whether or not the first politician should be impeached.

Of course the point is that the liberal in my hypothetical conversation is guilty of holding a double standard and screams "Whataboutism!" when their hypocrisy is exposed.

The next line in the hypothetical conversation might go, "Well, as soon as you're willing to hold [Democrat politician] accountable for their actual crimes, then we can discuss the mere accusations against [Republican politician]."

[guacamole]

Of course the point is that the liberal in my hypothetical conversation is guilty of holding a double standard and screams "Whataboutism!" when their hypocrisy is exposed.

The next line in the hypothetical conversation might go, "Well, as soon as you're willing to hold [Democrat politician] accountable for their actual crimes, then we can discuss the mere accusations against [Republican politician]."

Without getting hung up on the "mere accusations" and "actual crimes", the liberal speaker in your example is engaging in what is sometimes called the fallacy-fallacy. Simply naming a fallacy does not demonstrate the wrongness of the reasoning and does not prove that the conclusion is still incorrect.