Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"Whataboutism": The Strategy to Get Away With Murder
https://medium.com/@lawrencegab/whataboutism-the-strategy-to-get-away-with-murder-faecfa7add4...We are unknowingly being caught into this form of argument because of the way it was purposed. Being able to escape these kinds of situations is precisely why Trump and Putin are so formidable as speakers. Both of these men have gotten away with controversy after controversy using the same technique over and over again. The effectiveness behind Trump and Putin’s use of whataboutism lies in their ability to deflect attention onto other people. By not directly answering these questions and redirecting the audience’s attention, they are hiding behind a logical fallacy known as tu quoque to avoid giving a potentially dangerous answer.
What’s even more crucial to understand is that when someone is being accused and he/she defers to another person/subject, that is neither an acceptance or a denial of the accusation. Let me repeat, that is NEITHER an acceptance or denial of the accusation.
...Even when it’s not about ourselves specifically, like in the cases of sports and religion, we recognize the flaws in other subjects to bring into the conversation in order to distract the accuser. If violence in the Quran is in question, many would turn to the violence written in The Old Testament as a counter for equivalence. But what was really accomplished? Nothing! There was nothing discussed as to why violence occurred in the Quran, just a cowardly subject change instead of a legitimate defense of the Quran. My advice? If you can’t properly defend without changing subjects then you shouldn’t contribute at all. Period. So if we want to have substantive conversations, let’s stop pointing to hypocrisy but either take responsibility or defend with facts. This post is also to bring awareness that when a response falls into the realm of “whataboutism”, you need to be fully conscious of what is occurring in order to lead the conversation for the better.
What’s even more crucial to understand is that when someone is being accused and he/she defers to another person/subject, that is neither an acceptance or a denial of the accusation. Let me repeat, that is NEITHER an acceptance or denial of the accusation.
...Even when it’s not about ourselves specifically, like in the cases of sports and religion, we recognize the flaws in other subjects to bring into the conversation in order to distract the accuser. If violence in the Quran is in question, many would turn to the violence written in The Old Testament as a counter for equivalence. But what was really accomplished? Nothing! There was nothing discussed as to why violence occurred in the Quran, just a cowardly subject change instead of a legitimate defense of the Quran. My advice? If you can’t properly defend without changing subjects then you shouldn’t contribute at all. Period. So if we want to have substantive conversations, let’s stop pointing to hypocrisy but either take responsibility or defend with facts. This post is also to bring awareness that when a response falls into the realm of “whataboutism”, you need to be fully conscious of what is occurring in order to lead the conversation for the better.
At least an attempt to mention the OT in response to violence in the Koran is still within the realm of religious texts.
"Whatabout" the Chinese government is not.
22 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
If the argument is factually correct, as in the fact that China consistently oppresses theists, there is no fallacy.
Stay in school.
