From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Disingenuous accusations of whataboutism[edit]

It's fallacious to suggest whataboutism only applies to Russia[edit]

Unless you're suggesting that only Russians are biologically wired to commit the fallacy while Westerners are not. Fact remains that tit-for-tat accusations against "opponent" countries had existed before the Soviet Union, and will continue to exist. Furthermore, the US does not attack Russia because it has genuine interests in their human rights, but such attacks afford their greater diplomatic leverage.-- (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This page is about a neologism, which is almost always applied to Russia, and is just a different way of phrasing the tu quoque and/or not as bad as fallacies. When I created this page over a year ago I couldn't find any references to this term being applied elsewhere. Now, it's certainly possible I missed something, or that things have changed in the last year and a half (As Mona has suggested), but so far no one has provided decent examples of such usage. Please, find some examples and edit the page! Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I am mostly a reader and haven't payed any attention to the arguments, but I thought this article kind of conflates "whataboutism" with "and you are lynching negroes", the latter being a joke statement about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and the former was coined in Jan 2008, long after the Cold War was over. Furthermore I felt that the examples (being added and removed) are pretty weird, especially seeing the statement about "NK and China also favors this tactic" (with little reference), but the bit about Islamism was removed. I guess maybe the article would do a bit better with some exploration of the origins of the term from the Economist article, where it did mention that this fallacy, by other names, is applicable to every government, but the Russians tend to overuse it, and the reasons behind its resurgence. Or explore cases where the example specifically references whataboutism eg this article about Azerbaijan vs US [1].-- (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[2] Here is an article discussion the Ferguson riots and its effects on "whataboutism".-- (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this page some love later, incorporating your comments as well as the previous discussions, unless someone else does it first. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope this does not devolve into another flame war... Mona threw a tantrum for me even suggesting that accusations of whataboutism can be fallacious in and by themselves... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Stop trying to cause shit.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not trying to cause shit. I am trying to advise someone which aspects tend to be controversial, based on experience... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona had yet to comment at at all and thus your comment will have no effect but to cause shit. Do not cause shit. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
85% of the time I ignore Avenger, and will do so here as well. Others on this page already saw his inane, reverted (not by me) edits trying to make the whataboutery definition inapplicable to him/Zionists. I feel no need to "defend myself" in a situation where folks have significant experience of Avenger.---Mona- (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice way of inverting facts, I did not mention Zionism or Israel at all in the edit in question. All I did was dare to suggest that not every time someone says "whataboutism" that someone is right. But you will probably ignore this as well, as you do every time you feel it to be convenient to you or your "cause". Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker, I don't want to be the one to introduce Zionist whataboutery in this article, but it is true that whataboutery (the British term for the same phenomenon that I picked up at the Guardian), is heavily resorted to by Zionists. That's been noted even by conservative Israel supporters, and by less wingnut Israel defenders, including here ("'Whataboutery' is always a disreputable way of distracting attention. Those who look at Gaza and say: 'But what about Syria, Iran or Kurdistan?' are as bad as those who looked at Saddam's Iraq and said: 'But what about Burma, Congo or North Korea?'") These are pro-Israel writers acknowledging the frequent accusation; I could provide scads of pro-Palestinian writers making the charge with examples from Zionists. Certainly I've encounter it from virtually every Zionist I've engaged online, and that has been many -- including Avenger who sought to edit the article to render it impotent to be used against him. Anyway, I'll leave it to you whether this current, common Zionist resort to the fallacy merits inclusion.---Mona- (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the links ;-) I'll expand the page later tonight. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
After 3 months I kinda figured I'd take care of it myself. ;)---Mona- (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Whataboutism is about Russia[edit]

So please remove the examples that are not Russia! Or do you want to smear Israel? What is next? The Mossad has plans to kill Obama? 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Stalin apologetics[edit]

"Instead of attempting to justify the behaviour of the Soviet Union" This page seems to be suggesting that it is better to engage in Stalin apologetics rather than using tu quoque fallacies. Withoutaname (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

At least then they'd be honest yet wrong. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of which: Withoutaname is a tankie! Hooray for everyone involved! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
First off, if you're trying to flatter me it won't get you anywhere. Second, the link you made for the word "tankie" leads to the page for "Stalin apologetics". I don't believe I've mentioned Stalin in any of my posts so far. Withoutaname (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
*Being a Tankie intensifies* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah could you point out to me where I apologize for Stalin? I only mention him once in a quote. Withoutaname (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Though I freely admit to being an authoritarian. Withoutaname (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Other groups get called "tankies" if they take an authoritarian line". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution...But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
—Friedrich Engels, On Authority

In any case, flattery will get you nowhere. Withoutaname (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Something, something, dead guy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Just as relevant today as Darwin, Newton, Einstein... Withoutaname (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

HuffPo article[edit] Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Well, kind of, but more universal.-- (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)