Whataboutism in the discussion of religion

[guillaumeb]

First, what is it?

1) Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another.
2) It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Looking at the first point, intent is critical. And to establish intent, we need either an admission or repetitive behavior.
Absent either of those, we proceed to #2. In this group, the Religion Group, religious issues are given more prominence because of the nature and focus of the group, but that does not mean that we can only discuss negative behaviors as they relate to theists.
If the negative behavior being discussed is a universal human behavior, making that point is never meant to excuse the behavior, it is meant to show that religion is not the causal factor.

I bring this up because the accusation of whataboutism is incorrectly and constantly thrown out in an attempt to ignore a point being made.

[trotsky]

1. But whatabout the Chinese government? n/t

[trotsky]

2. This is your third attempt in the past several months to try and make yourself immune to the charge.

Why are you spamming the group with this?

Why not just stop engaging in whataboutism?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218292752

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218295865

[guillaumeb]

4. You demonstrate what I am saying.

Read the link. If you do, you can see what the tactic is.

[NeoGreen]

12. Don't forget...

...



https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302106

[trotsky]

21. LMFAO

[Major Nikon]

31. ...

[MineralMan]

3. And then you go ahead and use whataboutism anyhow.

[guillaumeb]

5. Make your point using the definition.

Using the word as an attempt to shut down discussion does not validate the charge.

[trotsky]

6. You mean the definition that you altered?

Yeah no, doesn't work that way.

Another massive fail to justify your hypocrisy!

[guillaumeb]

7. A false claim.

Read the link before making an accusation.

Alternatively, you misunderstand the word altered.

[trotsky]

19. No, you have added the word "intent."

It is in order for you to proclaim your innocence, that you had no "intent" to change the subject, but are merely trying to bring up the Chinese government every time totally legitimately.

In other words, to re-coin a Nixonian phrase: "It isn't whataboutism when guillaumeb does it."

Disgusting hypocrisy.

[guillaumeb]

23. You are still lincorrect.

The excerpt:

1)

Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another.
2) It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

In order to distract implies intent.

[trotsky]

26. You altered it to carve out an exception just for yourself.

Pathetic.

[Major Nikon]

32. Also conveniently ignored all the examples which matched his behavior

[marylandblue]

37. They didn't intend for the bridge to break, so everything is fine.

[Major Nikon]

48. At least g-man is the one person here who understands

It would be an absolute disaster otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

39. Not reading the link?

Pathetic.

You keep calling my post "altering", when it is contained in the actual link.

You seem unsure what altering means.

[trotsky]

50. No, it's not.

You altered it to provide an exception just for yourself. You now can just state that you are not INTENDING to change the subject, and boom, you're innocent.

Doesn't work that way, g. How about you just stop using whataboutism? Oh yeah, because you can't defend anything, you can only deflect.

[guillaumeb]

57. Rebuttal

Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.

https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

[trotsky]

61. Quoting the same out-of-context block isn't a rebuttal, g.

You're smarter than this. You have to be.

Or do you think I'm just stupid? I know you've implied as much before.

[guillaumeb]

68. Ignoring the obvious is not refuting the facts. eom

[trotsky]

71. What did I ignore?

Argue your point. As yet, you have not. You just keep copying and pasting and don't provide any kind of actual reasoning for whatever your position is. No wonder you're never taken seriously.

[guillaumeb]

8. Interesting accusation, and easily refuted.

1) Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another.
2) It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[trotsky]

20. Where is the word "intent"?

You added it.

Thank you for admitting your deceit.

[guillaumeb]

24. What does "in order to distract" mean?

Would that mean that a person intends on distracting?

[trotsky]

27. You altered it to carve out an exception just for yourself.

Pathetic.

[Major Nikon]

49. Convenient how that works, eh?

You just claim your dozens of distractions weren’t actually intended to be distractions and Shazam, no fallacy! It doesn’t matter that you’ve been called out on the bullshit as many times, you just keep claiming what you are doing is not actually what you are doing.

For further reading see...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

[marylandblue]

38. What about when Catholics accuse Protestants of blasphemy?

[guillaumeb]

40. Exactly.

What about when someone accuses someone of altering a text, when the text is there to be read, and the so-called alteration appears in the text?

[marylandblue]

41. Theists do that all the time.

We have records of changes in Biblical texts going back thousands of years. I guess it's only bad when atheists do it.

[trotsky]

51. Where is the word "intent"?

You still haven't pointed to it.

[Major Nikon]

54. Yeah, whatabout that intent and repetition?

Speaking of the "thread after thread" tactic,

As to the "why" of my posts on China, and the repression of theists by the Chinese Government, they should serve as counterpoint to the far more frequent posts about theists oppressing others.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=309626

[trotsky]

60. Isn't it nice he just outright admits his agenda?

Of course then he just says you're "misframing" when you quote his own words back at him.

[Major Nikon]

63. At least there's loads of entertainment value

[Mariana]

66. There's some entertainment value

but I must admit it gets old, watching the same show over and over again. His adoring public must be very easily entertained, to send him numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group.

[NeoGreen]

9. Queue the GIF!...

...

[guillaumeb]

11. So you too misunderstand the term?

Understood.

[NeoGreen]

14. Not in the least...

...and it's your apparently preferred mode of discourse...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302103

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=302106

[guillaumeb]

15. So what do you say about the definition, and the link?

Is intent required?

[NeoGreen]

16. It explains your mode of discourse perfectly...

...regardless of intent.

What-About Intent?
What-About China?

What-About, What-About, What-About...

All day long...

[guillaumeb]

18. Your response explains the need for my post.

I suggest further research.

Find a definition of the fallacy that refutes mine.

[NeoGreen]

22. Your OP should be preserved and pinned as a Public Service Announcement...

...in the hopes to prevent and avoid future train wrecks of what-about-ism by others.

[guillaumeb]

25. Yes it should, but that would require that you and others

acknowledge your mistake.

Intent is critical.

[NeoGreen]

28. What is your intent, when you use this mode of fallacy?

[guillaumeb]

42. Perhaps this will help.

Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.

https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

[marylandblue]

36. Done.

No mention of intent in this one.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

[trotsky]

52. Fantastic sentence on that page:

Whataboutism adds a twist to tu quoque by directing its energies into establishing an equivalence between two or more disparate actions, thereby defaming the accuser with the insinuation that their priorities are backwards.

This describes PRECISELY the form of whataboutism guillaumeb most frequently employs.

Someone mentions religious intolerance? G: "WHATABOUT the intolerance of the Chinese government?"

On edit - this too:

Since the Cold War, Moscow has engaged in a political points-scoring exercise known as "whataboutism" used to shut down criticism of Russia's own rights record by pointing out abuses elsewhere. All criticism of Russia is invalid, the idea goes, because problems exist in other countries too. —Max Seddon, Buzzfeed, 25 Nov. 2014

For gil, that sentence simply changes to "All criticism of religion when it comes to the topic of intolerance is invalid, because intolerance exists elsewhere."

NAILED IT.

[Major Nikon]

65. When one definition doesn't work for you, there's always others you can try to twist in your favor

Each time adding another knot to the pretzel logic employed. The idea being nobody is smart enough to realize the tactic of obfuscation is being employed. Even if they do they will never be smart enough to overcome the gaslighting.

The best part is after employing all of the cheap rhetorical tools in his bag of fallacy he wants to lecture others on the proper way to debate subjects.

[NeoGreen]

17. Literally...

...it is so ingrained in your posts, I actually saved a screen shot, months ago, to make the point:



In that post, you LITERALLY write What...About...The...Chinese.

[guillaumeb]

44. You are missing the essential point:

Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy


Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.

https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

[trotsky]

29. So what did you *intend* to do in this thread by bringing up China?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218302094#post8

Please explain your intent, and how what you did there was NOT whataboutism.

Go ahead. We're waiting.

[marylandblue]

35. He already explained that. He is showing that intolerance is universal.

Which is why I run a re-education camp in my basement to fit in with the neighbors.

[MineralMan]

10. I'm not bound by your definition, Monsieur B.

I will do as I choose.

[guillaumeb]

13. So you will make up your own definition?

The Red Queen?

[trotsky]

30. Why not? You get to.

Hold yourself to the same standard you hold others.

[guillaumeb]

58. tu quoque in evidence.

[trotsky]

62. I'm asking why you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself.

I can understand why you'd rather not answer.

[MineralMan]

53. No, I will synthesize a definition, based on multiple sources

and my own observations. I will also notice when someone literally writes "what about" while engaged in whataboutism:

[guillaumeb]

59. Whataboutism

Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.

https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

[MineralMan]

64. Yes, but why keep posting that so often?

[guillaumeb]

69. Because a few here apparently do not understand that. eom

[Major Nikon]

33. ...

[marylandblue]

34. Logical fallacies are never dependent on the ability to mind read.

[guillaumeb]

43. This might help:

Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.

https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

[marylandblue]

45. This might help.

If we accept that fallacious arguments require intent, then no argument can ever be wrong, because the speaker can always say his intent is to be truthful and correct.

[guillaumeb]

46. Diversion.

Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.

https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

We can infer intent even if it is not explicitly stated.

But the fallacy requires the argument that two wrongs make a right.

[marylandblue]

47. "We can infer intent even if it is not explicitly stated"

Thank you. By your definition, I have inferred that you frequently commit whataboutism. By my definition, which doesn't require knowing your intent, you have also committed whataboutism. Either way, you do it a lot.

[Major Nikon]

55. There's no need to infer what has been explicitly stated

Speaking of the "thread after thread" tactic,

As to the "why" of my posts on China, and the repression of theists by the Chinese Government, they should serve as counterpoint to the far more frequent posts about theists oppressing others.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=309626

[guillaumeb]

56. Misunderstanding 101

Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.

https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

That suggestion implies intent.

[trotsky]

67. Yes, and you expressed your intent as proven by the referenced post of yours.

You string yourself up and pull the lever. Wow.

[guillaumeb]

70. I understand that you truly believe that.

But your own cited source refutes what you concluded.

[trotsky]

72. I believe that because it's your own words.

Jesus Christ gil.