Honestly, in your example, you sound like, as you put it, a dumb cunt. The purpose of “whataboutism” is to point out hypocrisy in your debate opponent’s position. Your dad pointed out that a politician on your side did something equally deplorable to the one you’d called out on his side. Rather than respond to that and have a reasonable conversation about the nuance and differences between your chosen politicians, perhaps coming to better understand each other, you chose to devolve to nonsense, intentionally killing the conversation.
That screams poorly educated (but possibly with an expensive education that makes you feel superior enough that you don’t bother to question yourself and your ideals).
The purpose of “whataboutism” is to point out hypocrisy in your debate opponent’s position.
No, it is not. It would be if the argument was, for example, “which candidate is better” or “who should I vote for”. But that wouldn’t be “whataboutism” either, it would be just “point out hypocrisy”.
If we are talking about just that single person (not even in a political way) and you bring up someone else just to deviate the attention, that is whataboutism and it’s poison for the mind.
Rather than respond to that and have a reasonable conversation…
People that use this mechanism don’t whant to have a “reasonable conversation”, they just want to be right at all cost, even by sabotaging the debate. If you want to engage with them feel free to waste your time. I value mine more than that.
Plus keeping the argument going will make relationships worse: I voluntarely crash arguments like that with my father because yes, I do think that he’s a dumb cunt, but at the end of the day I still want to say him “I love you nonetheless”.
Sounds like this is more of a debate about semantics. “Whataboutism” is a recently-popularized term that doesn’t have a concrete definition yet. You see it as a tool to escape a debate by diverting attention, but I see it as a tool to highlight hypocrisy while continuing a debate. Really, I guess what matters is context - specifically, whether one is attempting to debate “in good faith” (another recently-popularized, inconsistently-defined term).
I certainly don’t know you or your personal relationship with your dad. He doesn’t sound like a great debate opponent, but to be fair, neither do you. Most people aren’t nowadays, sad to say. Somewhere between Trump and Biden, people forgot how to wait their turn and debate the idea, rather than the person. It takes two to tango, they say, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find two individuals who are able to set aside their egos and listen in earnest to opposing beliefs.
I guess I’m a bit biased. 2020 turned me into a misanthrope. 🤷
“Whataboutism” is a recently-popularized term that doesn’t have a concrete definition yet
It’s neither recent nor interpretable XD. It was coniated by a journalist in the '70s with the specific meaning I’m telling you. The origin is actually interesting.
I’ll give you that it is more frequent nowadays, since it is an escamotage that populist groups use a lot and they are rising all around the world.
He doesn’t sound like a great debate opponent, but to be fair, neither do you
If you are both ignorant and arrogant I’m the worst debate opponent on the fucking planet and I will just troll you into the ground. Expecially with people from my father’s generation, with their “I’m always right” attitude. It doesn’t matter how well informed/educated you might be, they are never receptive and never will. So if I’m forced to argue with them, I make sure I’m the one having fun.
In any other context (luckily the majority) I’m pretty chill and I’ve actually been told by many people to be a really good talker/debater.
So if I’m forced to argue with them, I make sure I’m the one having fun.
I can respect that. If they’ve proven themselves to be ignorrogant, there’s no reason to get all flusterfucked trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I’ve dealt with enough people who use trolling as their primary debate strategy that I guess I got shit-triggered. Apologies, friend, for assuming the worst.
Whataboutism as an argument is about chasing the lowest possible ethical standard. You’ll always find someone worse. That doesn’t mean it’s ok.
Even worse, they’re always exaggerated comparisons, such as “zomg, hunter Biden was using drugs”. Well, did you vote for hunter? And almost consistently, the sources being used aren’t reliable sources. And once those claims are fully rebuked, they move on to the latest nonsense (there are a lot of scared whistleblowers out there who the allegedly mentally weak “sleepy Joe” Biden is apparently threatening lol).
Let’s not make this political. Right wing and left wing are still part of the same bird. They used to move in harmony, balancing each other, but for the past few years, those wings have been either attacking or ignoring each other. The eagle is in free-fall, and it’s mindsets like this that keep it from course-correcting.
But what about the children? Won’t somebody please think of the children?!
Honestly, in your example, you sound like, as you put it, a dumb cunt. The purpose of “whataboutism” is to point out hypocrisy in your debate opponent’s position. Your dad pointed out that a politician on your side did something equally deplorable to the one you’d called out on his side. Rather than respond to that and have a reasonable conversation about the nuance and differences between your chosen politicians, perhaps coming to better understand each other, you chose to devolve to nonsense, intentionally killing the conversation. That screams poorly educated (but possibly with an expensive education that makes you feel superior enough that you don’t bother to question yourself and your ideals).
No, it is not. It would be if the argument was, for example, “which candidate is better” or “who should I vote for”. But that wouldn’t be “whataboutism” either, it would be just “point out hypocrisy”.
If we are talking about just that single person (not even in a political way) and you bring up someone else just to deviate the attention, that is whataboutism and it’s poison for the mind.
People that use this mechanism don’t whant to have a “reasonable conversation”, they just want to be right at all cost, even by sabotaging the debate. If you want to engage with them feel free to waste your time. I value mine more than that.
Plus keeping the argument going will make relationships worse: I voluntarely crash arguments like that with my father because yes, I do think that he’s a dumb cunt, but at the end of the day I still want to say him “I love you nonetheless”.
Sounds like this is more of a debate about semantics. “Whataboutism” is a recently-popularized term that doesn’t have a concrete definition yet. You see it as a tool to escape a debate by diverting attention, but I see it as a tool to highlight hypocrisy while continuing a debate. Really, I guess what matters is context - specifically, whether one is attempting to debate “in good faith” (another recently-popularized, inconsistently-defined term).
I certainly don’t know you or your personal relationship with your dad. He doesn’t sound like a great debate opponent, but to be fair, neither do you. Most people aren’t nowadays, sad to say. Somewhere between Trump and Biden, people forgot how to wait their turn and debate the idea, rather than the person. It takes two to tango, they say, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find two individuals who are able to set aside their egos and listen in earnest to opposing beliefs.
I guess I’m a bit biased. 2020 turned me into a misanthrope. 🤷
It’s neither recent nor interpretable XD. It was coniated by a journalist in the '70s with the specific meaning I’m telling you. The origin is actually interesting.
I’ll give you that it is more frequent nowadays, since it is an escamotage that populist groups use a lot and they are rising all around the world.
If you are both ignorant and arrogant I’m the worst debate opponent on the fucking planet and I will just troll you into the ground. Expecially with people from my father’s generation, with their “I’m always right” attitude. It doesn’t matter how well informed/educated you might be, they are never receptive and never will. So if I’m forced to argue with them, I make sure I’m the one having fun.
In any other context (luckily the majority) I’m pretty chill and I’ve actually been told by many people to be a really good talker/debater.
I can respect that. If they’ve proven themselves to be ignorrogant, there’s no reason to get all flusterfucked trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I’ve dealt with enough people who use trolling as their primary debate strategy that I guess I got shit-triggered. Apologies, friend, for assuming the worst.
Well. No.
Whataboutism as an argument is about chasing the lowest possible ethical standard. You’ll always find someone worse. That doesn’t mean it’s ok.
Even worse, they’re always exaggerated comparisons, such as “zomg, hunter Biden was using drugs”. Well, did you vote for hunter? And almost consistently, the sources being used aren’t reliable sources. And once those claims are fully rebuked, they move on to the latest nonsense (there are a lot of scared whistleblowers out there who the allegedly mentally weak “sleepy Joe” Biden is apparently threatening lol).
And this seems to be mostly a Right wing attitude
Let’s not make this political. Right wing and left wing are still part of the same bird. They used to move in harmony, balancing each other, but for the past few years, those wings have been either attacking or ignoring each other. The eagle is in free-fall, and it’s mindsets like this that keep it from course-correcting.
But what about the children? Won’t somebody please think of the children?!