Who Defines "Whataboutism?"

[Spock]

It seems that somebody decided that history just began this morning and that every tiny issue has to be treated in pure isolation.

Otherwise, you are committing "Whataboutism"-however somebody wishes to define it so it suits their immediate need.

I heard a discussion about the upcoming land seizures from the whites in South Africa-it is just really starting to get up to speed.

Is it "Whataboutism" to look at what happened in a similar situation in Zimbabwe (circa 2000) as a model for what will probably happen in South Africa?

One caller seemed to think it was irrelevant and (funny this) had no knowledge of the Zimbabwe land seizures even though he was strongly in favor of the seizures in South Africa. For him, history just started this morning.

He basically considered Zimbabwe seizures "Whataboutism." Was he right or wrong?

God, I hate that term.

[Bob Juch]

It seems that somebody decided that history just began this morning and that every tiny issue has to be treated in pure isolation.

Otherwise, you are committing "Whataboutism"-however somebody wishes to define it so it suits their immediate need.

I heard a discussion about the upcoming land seizures from the whites in South Africa-it is just really starting to get up to speed.

Is it "Whataboutism" to look at what happened in a similar situation in Zimbabwe (circa 2000) as a model for what will probably happen in South Africa?

One caller seemed to think it was irrelevant and (funny this) had no knowledge of the Zimbabwe land seizures even though he was strongly in favor of the seizures in South Africa.

He basically considered Zimbabwe seizures "Whataboutism." Was he right or wrong?

God, I hate that term.

I do not think that word means what they think it does.

Whataboutism is when people try to justify what someone did by saying someone opposed to them did something supposedly similar. As when trump supporters say, "But Hillary..."

The case you have above is learning from history.

[Bob78164]

It seems that somebody decided that history just began this morning and that every tiny issue has to be treated in pure isolation.

Otherwise, you are committing "Whataboutism"-however somebody wishes to define it so it suits their immediate need.

I heard a discussion about the upcoming land seizures from the whites in South Africa-it is just really starting to get up to speed.

Is it "Whataboutism" to look at what happened in a similar situation in Zimbabwe (circa 2000) as a model for what will probably happen in South Africa?

One caller seemed to think it was irrelevant and (funny this) had no knowledge of the Zimbabwe land seizures even though he was strongly in favor of the seizures in South Africa.

He basically considered Zimbabwe seizures "Whataboutism." Was he right or wrong?

God, I hate that term.

Whataboutism is the rhetorical technique of attempting to distract from a perceived present wrong (rather than defending the present practice) by pointing to an assertedly similar past practice. The point is that the response to the past practice doesn't change whether the present practice is right or wrong.

For example, if you argue that land seizures in South Africa are wrong, it would be whataboutism to ignore the argument and distract attention by arguing that land seizures in Zimbabwe were generally accepted. But if you're arguing that the aftermath of land seizures in Zimbabwe are in some way predictive of what will happen after land seizures in South Africa, that's not whataboutism. --Bob

[Spock]

>>>Whataboutism is when people try to justify what someone did by saying someone opposed to them did something supposedly similar. As when trump supporters say, "But Hillary..."<<<

If Hillary (for example) did something similar to Trump (for example) why am I not permitted to point that out.

Why do you get to limit the discussion to Trump?

[Bob78164]

>>>Whataboutism is when people try to justify what someone did by saying someone opposed to them did something supposedly similar. As when trump supporters say, "But Hillary..."<<<

If Hillary (for example) did something similar to Trump (for example) why am I not permitted to point that out.

Why do you get to limit the discussion to Trump?

It's not a defense of what Donny is doing to claim (or point out) that someone else did something that you see as similar. It's just not. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Would it not be reasonable to compare whatabouts if another person hadn't been investigated, prosecuted, indicted for sim8lar actions, and to evaluate why they were not? And to explore past whatabouts wherein someone was prosecuted, investigated or indicted to determine if YOU disagreed with it only due to political or personal distaste? That last applies to bo5h sides.

[Bob78164]

Would it not be reasonable to compare whatabouts if another person hadn't been investigated, prosecuted, indicted for sim8lar actions, and to evaluate why they were not? And to explore past whatabouts wherein someone was prosecuted, investigated or indicted to determine if YOU disagreed with it only due to political or personal distaste? That last applies to bo5h sides.

Neither of those affects whether the present situation is wrong or right. "So-and-so got away with it before" is not an argument that the present conduct is acceptable. It's an attempt to distract from the present conduct.

And arguing that criticism of present conduct is hypocritical is likewise beside the point unless you're willing to argue that both the past and present conduct were acceptable. Otherwise it's just an ad hominem attack. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Would it not be reasonable to compare whatabouts if another person hadn't been investigated, prosecuted, indicted for sim8lar actions, and to evaluate why they were not? And to explore past whatabouts wherein someone was prosecuted, investigated or indicted to determine if YOU disagreed with it only due to political or personal distaste? That last applies to bo5h sides.

Neither of those affects whether the present situation is wrong or right. "So-and-so got away with it before" is not an argument that the present conduct is acceptable. It's an attempt to distract from the present conduct.

And arguing that criticism of present conduct is hypocritical is likewise beside the point unless you're willing to argue that both the past and present conduct were acceptable. Otherwise it's just an ad hominem attack. --Bob

I'm sort of saying you're applying absolutes when nobody really adheres to them. There are absolutes of right/wrong, but those have nothing to do with legality. Still ignores the dismissal of crap from those "you", collective you, agree with politically or otherwise.

[Bob78164]

Would it not be reasonable to compare whatabouts if another person hadn't been investigated, prosecuted, indicted for sim8lar actions, and to evaluate why they were not? And to explore past whatabouts wherein someone was prosecuted, investigated or indicted to determine if YOU disagreed with it only due to political or personal distaste? That last applies to bo5h sides.

Neither of those affects whether the present situation is wrong or right. "So-and-so got away with it before" is not an argument that the present conduct is acceptable. It's an attempt to distract from the present conduct.

And arguing that criticism of present conduct is hypocritical is likewise beside the point unless you're willing to argue that both the past and present conduct were acceptable. Otherwise it's just an ad hominem attack. --Bob

I'm sort of saying you're applying absolutes when nobody really adheres to them. There are absolutes of right/wrong, but those have nothing to do with legality. Still ignores the dismissal of crap from those "you", collective you, agree with politically or otherwise.

I'm all about what can be done about it. The past is the past. Right or wrong, it's written in stone. Stuff that's going on now, we can change. All we need is the political will to do so. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

>>>Whataboutism is when people try to justify what someone did by saying someone opposed to them did something supposedly similar. As when trump supporters say, "But Hillary..."<<<

If Hillary (for example) did something similar to Trump (for example) why am I not permitted to point that out.

Why do you get to limit the discussion to Trump?

Have you ever heard, "Two wrongs don't make a right."?

[Beebs52]

>>>Whataboutism is when people try to justify what someone did by saying someone opposed to them did something supposedly similar. As when trump supporters say, "But Hillary..."<<<

If Hillary (for example) did something similar to Trump (for example) why am I not permitted to point that out.

Why do you get to limit the discussion to Trump?

Have you ever heard, "Two wrongs don't make a right."?

That would be great if everybody would remember that EVERY single NEXT time. Fatuous.

[Spock]

Is it "Whataboutism" to remind all of the newfound cold warriors here that midway through his tenure Obama snarkily dismissed even the idea of Russia as a geopolitical foe to no outrage from anyone on the left here?

I guess I am saying "But-Obama..." but why can't I do that under the laws of "Whataboutism?"

Other than some George MacDonald Fraser short stories, nothing has ever made me chuckle more than your rapid pivot to "Russia-Bad." Welcome to the club*, but, I guess the history of your opinions on Russia basically started this morning.

*FTR and FWIW-I consider China more of a foe than Russia.

[Bob78164]

Is it "Whataboutism" to remind all of the newfound cold warriors here that midway through his tenure Obama snarkily dismissed even the idea of Russia as a geopolitical foe to no outrage from anyone on the left here?

I guess I am saying "But-Obama..." but why can't I do that under the laws of "Whataboutism?"

Yes. It's not an argument that Comrade Donny's actions are or should be acceptable. It's an ad hominem suggestion that people pointing out Comrade Donny's submission to Russia are hypocrites. Even if that's true (and it's not), so what? We can't change the past. We can change what Comrade Donny still has the opportunity to do in the White House.

And I'll add, by the way, that it was Mitch McConnell who, for perceived political advantage, prevented President Obama from publicizing Russia's attack on our elections by threatening to claim that President Obama was politicizing national security. In my book, that's a betrayal of our country. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Is it "Whataboutism" to remind all of the newfound cold warriors here that midway through his tenure Obama snarkily dismissed even the idea of Russia as a geopolitical foe to no outrage from anyone on the left here?

Whether Obama was right or wrong about Russia is beside the point. He's not running for office. And Russia's intentions towards us in 2012 weren't nearly as clear as they are now. Romney's push against the Russians was for more conventional weapons, tanks and planes, etc. In that regard, he sounded just like every other Republican politician for the past 50 years, advocating more and bigger guns to please their backers in the defense industry.

We might just as well go back to George Washington being hostile towards the British.

Trump needs to be judged on his own actions. Obama may well have failed to anticipate the Russian danger. Trump is aware of it but doesn't seem to want to do anything about safeguarding our elections this time around.

[BackInTex]

Bobbie Sue defines Whataboutism.

You see, when he is called on his hypocrisy, and to do so, you have to point out his lack of outrage for similar actions by his side, he calls it "whataboutism".

He hides his hypocrisy behind that word.

[Bob78164]

Bobbie Sue defines Whataboutism.

You see, when he is called on his hypocrisy, and to do so, you have to point out his lack of outrage for similar actions by his side, he calls it "whataboutism".

He hides his hypocrisy behind that word.

I assume you're referring to me, sweetiepie.

Whether I'm a hypocrite is a completely separate issue from whether I'm right now about Donny. And if you're defending Donny or giving him a pass for actions that caused you to excoriate earlier politicians, you're at least as hypocritical as you claim I'm being. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Bobbie Sue defines Whataboutism.

You see, when he is called on his hypocrisy, and to do so, you have to point out his lack of outrage for similar actions by his side, he calls it "whataboutism".

He hides his hypocrisy behind that word.

I assume you're referring to me, sweetiepie.

Whether I'm a hypocrite is a completely separate issue from whether I'm right now about Donny. And if you're defending Donny or giving him a pass for actions that caused you to excoriate earlier politicians, you're at least as hypocritical as you claim I'm being. --Bob

You pick and choose what you respond to. Can you not admit your own bias? I admit my bias against both Clintons. Despise them both and know folks who dealt with them back in the day. Mirror mirror...

[Bob78164]

Bobbie Sue defines Whataboutism.

You see, when he is called on his hypocrisy, and to do so, you have to point out his lack of outrage for similar actions by his side, he calls it "whataboutism".

He hides his hypocrisy behind that word.

I assume you're referring to me, sweetiepie.

Whether I'm a hypocrite is a completely separate issue from whether I'm right now about Donny. And if you're defending Donny or giving him a pass for actions that caused you to excoriate earlier politicians, you're at least as hypocritical as you claim I'm being. --Bob

You pick and choose what you respond to. Can you not admit your own bias? I admit my bias against both Clintons. Despise them both and know folks who dealt with them back in the day. Mirror mirror...

Whether I'm biased against Donny is likewise irrelevant to whether I'm right about his actions. Can you defend Donny's actions on their own merits or can't you? --Bob

[BackInTex]

Bobbie Sue defines Whataboutism.

You see, when he is called on his hypocrisy, and to do so, you have to point out his lack of outrage for similar actions by his side, he calls it "whataboutism".

He hides his hypocrisy behind that word.

I assume you're referring to me, sweetiepie.

Whether I'm a hypocrite is a completely separate issue from whether I'm right now about Donny. And if you're defending Donny or giving him a pass for actions that caused you to excoriate earlier politicians, you're at least as hypocritical as you claim I'm being. --Bob

I've never given President Trump a pass on anything I was critical of to others. I've stated my dislike of his actions many times. What I have done (and maybe you can't understand the difference) is criticized you for your over the top criticism of Trump for things your favs have done. You either respond with "whataboutism" (even though I'm not saying what Trump did was O.K.) or "she's not running" or "he's not running". You are critical of President Trump and have a "fair weather" morality about you that is telling of your character.

[Beebs52]

I assume you're referring to me, sweetiepie.

Whether I'm a hypocrite is a completely separate issue from whether I'm right now about Donny. And if you're defending Donny or giving him a pass for actions that caused you to excoriate earlier politicians, you're at least as hypocritical as you claim I'm being. --Bob

You pick and choose what you respond to. Can you not admit your own bias? I admit my bias against both Clintons. Despise them both and know folks who dealt with them back in the day. Mirror mirror...

Whether I'm biased against Donny is likewise irrelevant to whether I'm right about his actions. Can you defend Donny's actions on their own merits or can't you? --Bob

As far as legality or morality? Don't know on the legality for some of these, nor do you. Morality? We live in a secular world, there is so much I wouldn't personally do, but how do I cherry pick?

[Bob78164]

Bobbie Sue defines Whataboutism.

You see, when he is called on his hypocrisy, and to do so, you have to point out his lack of outrage for similar actions by his side, he calls it "whataboutism".

He hides his hypocrisy behind that word.

I assume you're referring to me, sweetiepie.

Whether I'm a hypocrite is a completely separate issue from whether I'm right now about Donny. And if you're defending Donny or giving him a pass for actions that caused you to excoriate earlier politicians, you're at least as hypocritical as you claim I'm being. --Bob

I've never given President Trump a pass on anything I was critical of to others. I've stated my dislike of his actions many times. What I have done (and maybe you can't understand the difference) is criticized you for your over the top criticism of Trump for things your favs have done. You either respond with "whataboutism" (even though I'm not saying what Trump did was O.K.) or "she's not running" or "he's not running". You are critical of President Trump and have a "fair weather" morality about you that is telling of your character.

Dislike of his actions is meaningless unless it comes with electoral consequences. As long as Republicans risk getting primaried for criticizing Donny, they won't do it. That's where Republican voters come in.

And there really isn't anything over the top about my criticisms of Donny. It's his actions that have been utterly unprecedented, and call for an unprecedented response. Republicans will certainly lose the popular vote for the House. I think they'll lose it by a big enough majority that Democrats will control the House, and then we'll find out what Donny has been hiding, facilitated by those who are actively assisting him and those who are merely too craven to stand up for the country. --Bob

[Bob78164]

You pick and choose what you respond to. Can you not admit your own bias? I admit my bias against both Clintons. Despise them both and know folks who dealt with them back in the day. Mirror mirror...

Whether I'm biased against Donny is likewise irrelevant to whether I'm right about his actions. Can you defend Donny's actions on their own merits or can't you? --Bob

As far as legality or morality? Don't know on the legality for some of these, nor do you. Morality? We live in a secular world, there is so much I wouldn't personally do, but how do I cherry pick?

I know that it's illegal to conspire to commit a federal crime, as Michael Cohen just said under oath that Donny did. And since Cohen said it in the context of agreeing that he himself had committed a federal crime and likely faces a few years in a federal prison, I'm inclined to think he's not making it up.

It's also a crime (witness tampering) to try to get people not to flip on you, by publicly praising them for refusing to flip and planting stories that you were discussing pardoning them.

Donny is firing the people who are investigating him and he's doing it because they're investigating him. That's unacceptable in any democracy. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Whether I'm biased against Donny is likewise irrelevant to whether I'm right about his actions. Can you defend Donny's actions on their own merits or can't you? --Bob

As far as legality or morality? Don't know on the legality for some of these, nor do you. Morality? We live in a secular world, there is so much I wouldn't personally do, but how do I cherry pick?

I know that it's illegal to conspire to commit a federal crime, as Michael Cohen just said under oath that Donny did. And since Cohen said it in the context of agreeing that he himself had committed a federal crime and likely faces a few years in a federal prison, I'm inclined to think he's not making it up.

It's also a crime (witness tampering) to try to get people not to flip on you, by publicly praising them for refusing to flip and planting stories that you were discussing pardoning them.

Donny is firing the people who are investigating him and he's doing it because they're investigating him. That's unacceptable in any democracy. --Bob

All speculation right now. Just to annoy you personally.

[Beebs52]

Is it "Whataboutism" to remind all of the newfound cold warriors here that midway through his tenure Obama snarkily dismissed even the idea of Russia as a geopolitical foe to no outrage from anyone on the left here?

Whether Obama was right or wrong about Russia is beside the point. He's not running for office. And Russia's intentions towards us in 2012 weren't nearly as clear as they are now. Romney's push against the Russians was for more conventional weapons, tanks and planes, etc. In that regard, he sounded just like every other Republican politician for the past 50 years, advocating more and bigger guns to please their backers in the defense industry.

We might just as well go back to George Washington being hostile towards the British.

Trump needs to be judged on his own actions. Obama may well have failed to anticipate the Russian danger. Trump is aware of it but doesn't seem to want to do anything about safeguarding our elections this time around.

So any previous prez's policies shouldn't be blamed for current difficulties? Now that is funny. Inherited, inherited, inherited...

[Bob78164]

As far as legality or morality? Don't know on the legality for some of these, nor do you. Morality? We live in a secular world, there is so much I wouldn't personally do, but how do I cherry pick?

I know that it's illegal to conspire to commit a federal crime, as Michael Cohen just said under oath that Donny did. And since Cohen said it in the context of agreeing that he himself had committed a federal crime and likely faces a few years in a federal prison, I'm inclined to think he's not making it up.

It's also a crime (witness tampering) to try to get people not to flip on you, by publicly praising them for refusing to flip and planting stories that you were discussing pardoning them.

Donny is firing the people who are investigating him and he's doing it because they're investigating him. That's unacceptable in any democracy. --Bob

All speculation right now. Just to annoy you personally.

And it will remain speculation in your eyes until we have a Congress that digs for and discloses the evidence that Donny is hiding, starting with his tax returns. Which means at least one House of Congress that isn't controlled by Republicans. --Bob