Whataboutism and the Unreasonable Left

[Perotista]

I'm glad you posted this, because it emphasizes a point I tried to make in the examples I provided in the OP.

I pointed out that at one time photos of the children of illegal migrant's locked in "cages" were being used to slam Trump's immigration policies. However, once it was discovered that those photos were from the Obama era not only did the Left "shut up" but they did their best to deflect, excuse, and justify followed by denial, and doubling down of other "discoveries." Now, if someone tries to point out that things like this were done by the prior administration when arguing a case of current actions, the immediate response is as stated "That's 'whataboutism' and has no relevance to the current situation."

I tend to try to avoid comparisons, and agree that two wrongs don't make a right; but sometimes I have no problem using them against members who do so first. I think it is disingenuous to cry "deflection" or "Tu Quoque" when one's opponent started us down that trail.

As stated, 90% of the time I just stop responding because there is no argument to refute. However, sometimes I believe a swift retort to show the hypocrisy of the position is merited.

That was my point. We have a bunch of very partisan hypocrites here. The old if my guy does something, it is always good and if your guy does the same thing it is always bad. Using Cardinals example, if my guy raped a school bus full of children, if your guy did the same thing. In my book it is wrong for me to defend my guy, but condemn your guy. Either one condemns both or defends both. Either way is fine with me. If one doesn't, just condemns my guy while defends their guy, that is a classic definition of a very partisan hypocrite.

On the thread of being a Vietnam Draft evader, I gave both a pass. I didn't and don't care. On the sexcapades, once again giving both a pass, I don't care who laid whom. But apparently the anti-Trump crowd will condemn trump on both, giving Bill a pass while defending him. The pro-Trump crowd defending Trump and condemning Bill.

That makes no sense to me outside of being partisan BS.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Do you believe that everybody who starts a thread that's critical of Trump is required to first list their position on every human being that preceded that topic?

Nope, but they should not say Clinton's sexcapades (to steal that term) did not matter but that Trump's now do. If it is truly the action which is objectionable then all who have committed that act should be equally tolerated or condemned. It is often easy to discern the difference quickly by simply offering them up a whataboutism.

 

[Cardinal]

Nope, but they should not say Clinton's sexcapades (to steal that term) did not matter but that Trump's now do. If it is truly the action which is objectionable then all who have committed that act should be equally tolerated or condemned. It is often easy to discern the difference quickly by simply offering them up a whataboutism.

See post 50.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How the question about Clinton works in practice is that the debate is now about Clinton and not Trump. And I can demonstrate this easily enough by arguing that Clinton didn't actually avoid the draft. And perhaps in response you argue that he did...and voila! The thread is derailed. The question also has the ancillary effect of "normalizing" the draft dodging that Trump did, which of course is the point.

So you can say that it's just about knowing whether the poster is being consistent, but in practice it's about the distraction.

The distraction would be brief indeed if you simply stated that taking advantage of any draft avoidance scheme was wrong and that you detested Clinton and never voted for him for that reason. What far too many do is to try to use one alleged character flaw to somehow invalidate all of that politician's issue positions. Whether POTUS X (or politician Y) dodged the draft makes no difference on whether or not US military involvement is warranted in response to situation Z.

 

[Cardinal]

The distraction would be brief indeed if you simply stated that taking advantage of any draft avoidance scheme was wrong and that you detested Clinton and never voted for him for that reason. What far too many do is to try to use one alleged character flaw to somehow invalidate all of that politician's issue positions. Whether POTUS X (or politician Y) dodged the draft makes no difference on whether or not US military involvement is warranted in response to situation Z.

The distraction is never brief. But more to the point it really only needs to happen on the first page, and then the thread is FUBAR as intended. And of course Trump's draft dodging is normalized.

AND what you and Perotista bring up is actually the most insidious version of whataboutism, whether you intended that or not. Most whataboutist arguments aren't even true, which is precisely what makes them so damn effective at hijacking threads.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-draft-pardon/

The false claim demands correction, which is the whole point.

 

[BlueElk]

I suppose if you live in a bubble where Trump and Fox and Friends define reality, this might appear to be true.

To those of us capable of dealing with reality, not so much.

AGAIN - Disruption to avoid Resolution - "Heat No Light"

Resolution offered remains unaddressed.

 

[Perotista]

How the question about Clinton works in practice is that the debate is now about Clinton and not Trump. And I can demonstrate this easily enough by arguing that Clinton didn't actually avoid the draft. And perhaps in response you argue that he did...and voila! The thread is derailed. The question also has the ancillary effect of "normalizing" the draft dodging that Trump did, which of course is the point.

So you can say that it's just about knowing whether the poster is being consistent, but in practice it's about the distraction.

So we're both distracted. It's nothing but pure partisanship to defend one and condemn the other. So have your fun condemning Trump while giving a pass and defending anything with a D next to their name. Such is life today in the era of hyper partisanship.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The distraction is never brief. But more to the point it really only needs to happen on the first page, and then the thread is FUBAR as intended. And of course Trump's draft dodging is normalized.

AND what you and Perotista bring up is actually the most insidious version of whataboutism, whether you intended that or not. Most whataboutist arguments aren't even true, which is precisely what makes them so damn effective at hijacking threads.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-draft-pardon/

The false claim demands correction, which is the whole point.

The claim that I made "Clinton took advantage of a draft dodging scheme" is entirely accurate (even by your link's standards).

That Bill Clinton went to great lengths to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, that he used political connections to obtain special favors, and that he made promises and commitments which he later failed to honor, are all beyond dispute.

Now, that was easy - was it not? Back on topic - did you give Clinton the same 'penalty box' treatment that you now do for Trump's having taken advantage of a draft dodging scheme or should they both become "normalized"?

 

[Cardinal]

The claim that I made "Clinton took advantage of a draft dodging scheme" is entirely accurate (even by your link's standards).



Now, that was easy - was it not? Back on topic - did you give Clinton the same 'penalty box' treatment that you now do for Trump's having taken advantage of a draft dodging scheme or should they both become "normalized?

And this is where I respond that giving deferments to Rhodes Scholars to go to school wasn't unusual in the least.

See how this works? Do you see us getting back to the matter of Trump's draft dodging any time soon? What we're playing out is the intended effect of whataboutism in real time.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And this is where I respond that giving deferments to Rhodes Scholars to go to school wasn't unusual in the least.

See how this works? Do you see us getting back to the matter of Trump's draft dodging any time soon? What we're playing out is the intended effect of whataboutism in real time.

I just did by conceding that both avoided the draft using schemes - but you continue to insist that Clinton's draft dodging scheme was somehow fundamentally different when your own link indicated otherwise. Thus I am arguing a hopeless case since you are stuck in a partisan rut - where only Trump's draft avoidance scheme should be "legitimately" called a negative. This is precisely why whataboutisms are used - pot meet kettle.

 

[JustHanging]

AGAIN - Disruption to avoid Resolution - "Heat No Light"

Resolution offered remains unaddressed.

Disruption of resolution is addressed in next convolution.

Or...you could provide reputable sources to support your nonsensical claims?

 

[Mach]

Whataboutism is simply another way of the left telling the right that they were correct in what the right had said.

Kind of like science, truth, journalism, etc.

 

[Cardinal]

I just did by conceding that both avoided the draft using schemes - but you continue to insist that Clinton's draft dodging scheme was somehow fundamentally different when your own link indicated otherwise. Thus I am arguing a hopeless case since you are stuck in a partisan rut - where only Trump's draft avoidance scheme should be "legitimately" called a negative. This is precisely why whataboutisms are used - pot meet kettle.

You call it a "a draft dodging scheme" (which is nowhere in that article, btw) as though not getting drafted by going to school, a common and deferment method, is draft-dodgy.

Hey, how's this quick distraction working out? Do you see us getting back to Trump's draft dodging any time soon?

What I think has gone completely over your head is that I'm not even debating this draft dodging thing seriously. The draft dodging issue is merely a prop for illustrating how whataboutism works.

Step 1) Poster claims, "Trump is a draft dodger."
Step 2) Poster 2 replies, "Yeah, but so did Clinton, so who cares?" This is an equivalency argument to normalize Trump's draft dodging, but it's also a false claim, leading to...
Step 3) Thread is derailed into a debate on whether Clinton actually did dodge the draft.
Step 4) Everybody forgets the initial claim that Trump is a draft dodger.

Get it now?

 

[Mr Person]

The above list of observations is also (as I have clearly posted in my tagline and at the summation of my blog post) why I often simply stop responding in threads.

You take great pains to avoid responding to any post that thoughtfully addresses yours, especially if it takes it apart at the joints. You just about only respond if someone is agreeing with you.

It has nothing to do with your having reached some kind of studied conclusion that a poster demands you follow rules that they do not. And of course, it is quite precious that you write the above immediately after having used your complaints about other posters to excuse yourself from following rules of fair argument.

Guess what: if you want to engage in hypocrisy, if you want to engage in whattaboutisms to deflect from a subject, if you want to engage in any of that behavior, that's on you. It's not on anyone else. And you don't get to excuse yourself because they "started it"

That's just as true as it would be your fault if you called me an insult. Nobody made you do it. Nobody else's behavior excuses yours.

I want to bring up the topic of the irrational position of "Whataboutism."

I keep seeing this argument/response presented by many in "The Resistance" whenever any negative comparison is made between Trump and some "hero of the Left." Most typically it is some comparison between President Obama's actions while in office compared with President Trump's, but it also encompasses the Clinton's, or any major public figure who may have done something contrary to the way Mr. Trump did/does it.

My trigger on this arose from a recent thread about Mr. Trump and the government shutdown over the budget. A Forum member had mentioned that Mr. Obama had also presided over a government shutdown seeking votes for the ACA. Up jumps a couple of members from the Left decrying "whataboutism" has no place in the discussion. Yet the same members have no problem comparing Mr. Obama's successes with Mr. Trump's failures. In such cases the claim is always that it isn't whataboutism for some strange varied reasoning.

We see this time and again, examples included border issues of migrant detention, and separation of children. Remember when those pictures of kids kept in "cages" were bandied about...right up until this evidence was found to have actually occurred during the Obama Administration. Not to mention mass deportations, and don't forget those family detentions until a 9th Circuit decision in 2016 forbad kids being held in custody, requiring separation. But mention this and they cry "foul" and "That's whataboutism which has no place in a discussion!"

I'm sure readers can provide other examples, but the point I am trying to make is that IMO many people who argue on the Left seem to think the rules they demand be followed only apply to their opponents.

Such people demand recognition of their own free speech rights; but command silence via allegations of "hate speech" or deflections via "whataboutism" of those who disagree.

Such people demand respect and consideration; but label those who don't support their ideals with complete disrespect, using hateful name-calling and efforts at ostracization.

Such people demand the right to protest spontaneously for what they believe in without limitation or hindrance; but have no problem acting out violently against, or to otherwise restrict those who march against what they believe in.

In short, they claim to be reasonable but act the exact opposite. IMO actions always speak louder than words.

Whataboutism is not a "thing," IMO it is an invention of the Left to stop from having to confront their own arguments being pushed back at them.

This is why I didn't buy into a request back sometime last year from a Forum member asking people to pledge not to use "whataboutism" in future discussions. I knew from experience the rules would only apply to those responding in defense of the current Administration, and somehow be justified as NOT applying to those opposed to it.

Only you could post a self-indulgent wall of text that boils down to another anti-left rant, then double-down by acting like you have created a perfectly reasonable excuse for yourself to do the things you accuse others of doing.

I can only think of one other poster who goes to such tortured lengths to put on a show of being objective while in fact being desperately partisan at every turn.




(Seriously...? "Whattaboutism" as an "invention of the left"? )

:lamo )

 

[Rogue Valley]

Whataboutism is not a "thing," IMO it is an invention of the Left to stop from having to confront their own arguments being pushed back at them.

Actually, whataboutism was a highly successful tactic developed by the Russian trolls on social media to get Trump elected. Obviously, it had an impact.

It has now been appropriated by Trumpers to divert from an uncomfortable topic (Mueller, Stormy, Manafort, etc.).

Their favorite whataboutisms are Hillary, Bill Clinton, Benghazi, Obama, Uranium One, yada, yada, yada.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You call it a "a draft dodging scheme" (which is nowhere in that article, btw) as though not getting drafted by going to school, a common and deferment method, is draft-dodgy.

Hey, how's this quick distraction working out? Do you see us getting back to Trump's draft dodging any time soon?

What I think has gone completely over your head is that I'm not even debating this draft dodging thing seriously. The draft dodging issue is merely a prop for illustrating how whataboutism works.

Step 1) Poster claims, "Trump is a draft dodger."
Step 2) Poster 2 replies, "Yeah, but so did Clinton, so who cares?" This is an equivalency argument to normalize Trump's draft dodging, but it's also a false claim, leading to...
Step 3) Thread is derailed into a debate on whether Clinton actually did dodge the draft.
Step 4) Everybody forgets the initial claim that Trump is a draft dodger.

Get it now?

OK what does this say:

That Bill Clinton went to great lengths to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, that he used political connections to obtain special favors, and that he made promises and commitments which he later failed to honor, are all beyond dispute.

Get it now?

 

[Rogue Valley]

OK what does this say:

Get it now?

What does that have to do with Trump?

 

[Cardinal]

OK what does this say:



Get it now?

Okay, so I respond to that, then you respond to me, then I respond to that, and then you respond to me, etc. And at no point are you obligated to cede your position and return the thread to its original topic: Trump's draft dodging.

Again, I was using draft dodging as a prop for demonstrating how whataboutism works. Do you not see that the draft dodging example was a prop and not a serious debate that I'm actually invested in?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Okay, so I respond to that, then you respond to me, then I respond to that, and then you respond to me, etc. And at no point are you obligated to cede your position and return the thread to its original topic: Trump's draft dodging.

Again, I was using draft dodging as a prop for demonstrating how whataboutism works. Do you not see that the draft dodging example was a prop and not a serious debate that I'm actually invested in?

Whatever Clinton did in regards to the draft ..... does not absolve Trump.

It's just a device to deflect.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What does that have to do with Trump?

Absolutely nothing other than Trump is being called out for the very thing that was said to have been no big deal for Clinton - taking advantage of a draft avoidance scheme. There has been post after post saying that draft avoidance by Clinton was OK yet draft avoidance by Trump is not OK. That makes it quite clear, at least to me, that the objection is to Trump personally rather than to his long past draft avoidance action.

 

[BlueElk]

I would argue that whataboutism always favors the party in power, as it is used to justify questionable behavior that is currently the topic of conversation, which is the province of the "Right" at this point in history.

Agreed - The Answer, favors the "Party" in power.

It is the Question, "WHAT? ABOUT ISM?", that favors "Left".


First - The behavior is questionable (WHAT? ABOUT ISM?) - (Catch 22)

Second - Questionable Behavior is a Progressive/Liberal/Reform Defining Trait.

Third - The "Left" behavior initiates/includes unilaterally IMPOSING (nonsense) concepts including/connecting fluid gender identities, safe spaces, microaggressions, etc.

Fourth - Therefore, any/all discussion containing logical thought, is likely to be a "trigger" used to terminate the flow of ideas.

Finally - Come Full Circle - The "Left" succeeds with (nonsense) Disruption and the "Right" with Resolution.

 

[Cardinal]

Whatever Clinton did in regards to the draft ..... does not absolve Trump.

It's just a device to deflect.

[primal scream]

 

[ttwtt78640]

Okay, so I respond to that, then you respond to me, then I respond to that, and then you respond to me, etc. And at no point are you obligated to cede your position and return the thread to its original topic: Trump's draft dodging.

Again, I was using draft dodging as a prop for demonstrating how whataboutism works. Do you not see that the draft dodging example was a prop and not a serious debate that I'm actually invested in?

I agreed many posts ago that both Trump and Clinton were draft dodgers before becoming POTUS. That is precisely how whataboutism works to show an equivalence - yet you still assert that only Trump's draft dodging action was wrong and tried to go so far as saying that Clinton's draft dodging action was somehow OK. So the focus shifted completely from draft dodging is a bad, terrible or evil thing to simply that Trump is worse than Clinton in your own myopic view for having done the same thing.

 

[Kobie]

Agreed - The Answer, favors the "Party" in power.

It is the Question, "WHAT? ABOUT ISM?", that favors "Left".


First - The behavior is questionable (WHAT? ABOUT ISM?) - (Catch 22)

Second - Questionable Behavior is a Progressive/Liberal/Reform Defining Trait.

Third - The "Left" behavior initiates/includes unilaterally IMPOSING (nonsense) concepts including/connecting fluid gender identities, safe spaces, microaggressions, etc.

Fourth - Therefore, any/all discussion containing logical thought, is likely to be a "trigger" used to terminate the flow of ideas.

Finally - Come Full Circle - The "Left" succeeds with (nonsense) Disruption and the "Right" with Resolution.

This is horse shit.

 

[Cardinal]

I agreed many posts ago that both Trump and Clinton were draft dodgers before becoming POTUS. That is precisely how whataboutism works to show an equivalence - yet you still assert that only Trump's draft dodging action was wrong and tried to go so far as saying that Clinton's draft dodging action was somehow OK. So the focus shifted completely from draft dodging is a bad, terrible or evil thing to simply that Trump is worse than Clinton in your own myopic view for having done the same thing.