You’re literally advocating for the concept of a fallacy which is basically whining “no you can’t just provide context nooo that would defeat my point.” Which was first used to excuse British colonial brutality and later used to defend lynching.
Whataboutism is an actual fallacy even if you din’t recognize that.
If we were talking about the vast amounts of crimes the British East India company was responsible for and you chimed in with “whatabout the Dutch East India company’s crimes” that would be a fallacious point because it is unrelated to the discussion and is only a diversionary tactic.
That is why whataboutism is a fallacy. It is used by people who cannot address the argument being made which you have done here.
The fact that the initial use of the term was to defray from atrocities doesn’t make the use of whataboutisms logically valid.
If you mention that the soviet union used tear gas in rare instances and therefore they’re authoritarian then I mention that the US frequently tear gasses protestors and BLM organizers keep showing up having shot themselves in the back of the head twice and you dont call them authoritarian that’s “whataboutism” and it isnt a fallacy, it is providing context that points out hypocrisy.
You dont want to understand yourself to be a hypocrite but you don’t want to change, is what it boils down to. So you do the though terminating “whataboutism” and you can ignore it.
In my Dutch/British East India Co example it is whataboutism because the purpose of brining up the Dutch East India company is to divert from the subject at hand. In your examples you ARE providing context and are not trying to change the subject so your examples are not examples of whataboutism and that is why you are not understanding what “whataboutism” is and why it is a fallacy.
If I said the USSR was authoritarian and therefore did not represent the will of the masses and you said “what about British the monarchy” and then tried to focus on that discussion then that would ge whataboutism.
Whataboutism is not about providing context through contrasting examples. It is a diversionary tactic for when you cannot address the claims made.
Im not being a hypocrite. You just don’t understand what whataboutism is as you have proved with your examples which once again are not examples of whataboutism.
That’s a shitty way of separating it though. It relies on knowing authorial intent which is impossible. You can project whatever you want onto the other person and based on that theyre either doing a logical fallacy or not.
No it doesn’t. The intent is obvious as a counter example works in context and isn’t a diversionary tactic.
If the topic is Donald Trump’s role in the insurrection on 1/6/21 and you say “but whatabout Hilary’s email’s?” that’s whataboutism because Hilary’s email scandal is unrelated.
If you instead said “what about the fact that Trump never appeared with the crowd outside the designated permitted spot and never told anyone to riot?” that would not be whataboutism because it is relevant.
Context is everything. Whataboutism is a fallacy and that is why. It does not make an argument flow from premise to conclusion.
I was criticizing people claiming whataboutism, you were doing “but what about people doing whataboutism!” Which is whataboutism.
Hence why we are having this conversation.
Yes we are having this because of your logical failures which you are doubling down on.
You’re literally advocating for the concept of a fallacy which is basically whining “no you can’t just provide context nooo that would defeat my point.” Which was first used to excuse British colonial brutality and later used to defend lynching.
No I am not doing that.
Whataboutism is an actual fallacy even if you din’t recognize that.
If we were talking about the vast amounts of crimes the British East India company was responsible for and you chimed in with “whatabout the Dutch East India company’s crimes” that would be a fallacious point because it is unrelated to the discussion and is only a diversionary tactic.
That is why whataboutism is a fallacy. It is used by people who cannot address the argument being made which you have done here.
The fact that the initial use of the term was to defray from atrocities doesn’t make the use of whataboutisms logically valid.
If you mention that the soviet union used tear gas in rare instances and therefore they’re authoritarian then I mention that the US frequently tear gasses protestors and BLM organizers keep showing up having shot themselves in the back of the head twice and you dont call them authoritarian that’s “whataboutism” and it isnt a fallacy, it is providing context that points out hypocrisy.
You dont want to understand yourself to be a hypocrite but you don’t want to change, is what it boils down to. So you do the though terminating “whataboutism” and you can ignore it.
In my Dutch/British East India Co example it is whataboutism because the purpose of brining up the Dutch East India company is to divert from the subject at hand. In your examples you ARE providing context and are not trying to change the subject so your examples are not examples of whataboutism and that is why you are not understanding what “whataboutism” is and why it is a fallacy.
If I said the USSR was authoritarian and therefore did not represent the will of the masses and you said “what about British the monarchy” and then tried to focus on that discussion then that would ge whataboutism.
Whataboutism is not about providing context through contrasting examples. It is a diversionary tactic for when you cannot address the claims made.
Im not being a hypocrite. You just don’t understand what whataboutism is as you have proved with your examples which once again are not examples of whataboutism.
That’s a shitty way of separating it though. It relies on knowing authorial intent which is impossible. You can project whatever you want onto the other person and based on that theyre either doing a logical fallacy or not.
No it doesn’t. The intent is obvious as a counter example works in context and isn’t a diversionary tactic.
If the topic is Donald Trump’s role in the insurrection on 1/6/21 and you say “but whatabout Hilary’s email’s?” that’s whataboutism because Hilary’s email scandal is unrelated.
If you instead said “what about the fact that Trump never appeared with the crowd outside the designated permitted spot and never told anyone to riot?” that would not be whataboutism because it is relevant.
Context is everything. Whataboutism is a fallacy and that is why. It does not make an argument flow from premise to conclusion.