this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
262 points (89.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43852 readers
866 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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. ๐คท
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.