Talk:Whataboutism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 15 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Sounds very similar to ...

Sounds very similar to Not as bad as.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off

Avenger and Arisboch are engaging in whataboutery in the Saloon. Called on it, they both run over here to vandalize the article so that it would allow their whataboutery about Egypt so that the focus isn't on Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. Stop it you two. What an example of wholly bad faith editing. ---Mona- (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just a shitty edit, full stop. Vague blah blah about hypothetical dictators in hypothetical countries committing hypothetical crimes, wut? I would have reverted it if I saw it first. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's totally shitty, but with a very particular motive. They were arguing with another User in the Saloon who linked to this article as rebuttal to their argument, and so they ran over here to change it in a dumb way to supposedly justify their Saloon position. That's some major bullshit, but of a piece with the behavior that's gotten both of them de-sysoped.---Mona- (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is fallacious use of whataboutism. If you don't like pointing this out, say so. And there have been real Honduran and El Salvadoran dictators. And dictators tend to execute and torture dissidents. In El Salvador this also has had nasty ethnic implications in the past, with most of the indigenous population - that were identifiable as such through customs, speech and clothing - being wiped out in one particularly nasty criminal act in the 1930s. If every time double standards are pointed out someone cries "whataboutism" this word loses all meaning. So while the example is intentionally not naming names (To decrease the potential amount of controversy), it is not made up out of thin air either. And as for Mona vandal-binning me. I just saw the reversion of my edit (respectively the reinstating of said edit by Arisboch) and reverted on sight while telling Mona to not abuse her sysop tools, because I felt that she had once again overstepped her bounds. That the reward I get for this is vandal binning just shows how thin-skinned she is. Not a desirable trait in a person with power and responsibility imho... So if we please could have a debate about whether there in fact fallacious uses of the word "whataboutism", please let's have it. Which would of course include that all interested parties be able to contribute to said debate and not be vandal binned. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

you have constantly made yourself a problem and were punished for it. That this makes it difficult for you to participate in wiki discussion is not our problem--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make it absolutly clear I am judging only the edit here, not any previous discussions, feuds, and others things I've taken no part in. I am not siding with Mona, Arisboch, or you, I am siding with the article. Based only on the edit, I say that it's shitty. Sorry, but it is :-( In fact, your "Fallacious use" is almost an example of whataboutism, as in your example you're pointing out "but what about [something unrelated to the point]". Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Given as you are the only user on this talk page who honestly seems to be interested in debating the issue on the merits, I will try to explain my point to you and all those willing to debate the issue. So I guess the problem is that I did not mention in my initial edit the most important point that I assumed could just be taken for granted as implicit. It is not whataboutism if you point out the hypocrisy of someone focusing on something (say an American without any relation to either place denouncing an Honduran dictator on human rights grounds) while ignoring the exact same thing (or even worse things) when it happens elsewhere (say that same American being silent on human rights abuses in El Salvador). The original use of whataboutism precisely refers to a Soviet use where the two things have nothing to do with each other. Soviet foreign and domestic policy have nothing to do with Jim Crowe laws. And they can't be judged by any similar yardstick excepot maybe for "both are wrong". However, you can compare the two examples I gave in an easy measure "Latin American human rights abuses" and the question why talk on the one is accompanied by silence on the other has to be raised. Imagine for example a Chavez analogue and a Pinochet analogue governing at roughly the same time. Wouldn't you point out the hypocrisy in an American Republican only pointing to the Chavez analogue and ignoring the crimes of the Pinochet analogue? And what would you respond if said Republican were to cry "whataboutism"? So on this issue and this issue alone, is there a fallacious use of whataboutism? And should it be mentioned in the article? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Whataboutism is deflection of a criticism one doesn't like by shrieking: "But X does it, too!" Or: "But X is worse!" That's what you and many Zionists do when your sacred cow -- Israel -- is at issue, and it is the sole reason you want this bogus edit. It's shit on its own merits, but your bad faith motive is also transparent. ---Mona- (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please answer whether pointing out double standards constitutes whataboutery? I mean if you hold Pinochet to different standards thaen Chavez or Farabundo Marti (1930s left wing revolutionary in El Salvador) to different standards thaen Eden Pastora (Contra leader in Nicaragua in the 1980s) is imho intellectually disingenuous and should not be called whataboutism. If we could hash out some sort of accepted compromise wording that reflects that, I think it would greatly improve this article and this is - after all - what we are here for, isn't it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Avenger's VBing is re-instated. ChrisAmiss, who paroled him, wasn't aware of the discussions on my and Paravant's talk pages. Paravant and I both agree to these actions and apparently so does Sorte Slyngle (discussion on my talk page).---Mona- (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more fun to keep them around for intellectual's sake. At least, when it comes to their apologetics, I enjoy debunking them as a sort of game. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

vandal bin isn't blocking. They can still be aRound--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris, you are a veritable font of knowledge and if only I was in a position to give you orders (said with smiling smirk) I'd want you devoting yourself to the sections of the Zionism article that still need attention. Not casting your pearls before these, uh, users. ;) ---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Right -- every 30 minutes they can be active here. It just slows down and impedes their ability to disrupt articles.---Mona- (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I may have forgotten >_< Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

And *I* think you didn't post that in the right spot. :) ---Mona- (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. This is going absolutely splendid. >_< :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's fallacious to suggest whataboutism only applies to Russia

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.--137.111.13.200 (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].--137.111.13.200 (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[2] Here is an article discussion the Ferguson riots and its effects on "whataboutism".--137.111.13.200 (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)