Information icon.svg The 2018 RMF board election has started! We are electing 3 boardmembers for the 2018-2020 term.
Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Whataboutism

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

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. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (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]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59932909e4b00914164043a4?ncid=applenews00001 Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

OH, YEAH, YOU MEAN LIKE WHEN YOUR LAZY BUTLER WASHES YOUR SOCK GARTERS AND THEY'RE STILL COVERED WITH SCHMUTZ!?[edit]

Well, kind of, but more universal.--116.240.236.234 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an understatement to say that Trump's statement on Charlottesville was whataboutism[edit]

In the other examples, there is at least an attempt to say something which is true about the events which played out. But in Trump's example, it wasn't hypocrisy, it was an accusation of hypocrisy at best. No, Trump's statement that both sides were to blame is a flat out lie. There was no evidence at all of the protesters coming at the 'alt-right' with clubs, it was a one-sided attack. — Unsigned, by: 5.69.198.86 / talk / contribs