Whataboutisms (again)

[BarryP]

So the tactic for 2019 appears to be focus on irrelevant Democrat politicians’ character flaws that are, in ways, similar to Trump’s personal flaws. Not surprisingly, in most cases, the flaws pale in comparison to Trump.

Which naturally illicit’s the response, “But the current President, whom you support, is much worse. How come you don’t care about that?”

Insert 2019’s NEW RULE. You are not allowed to point out the hypocrisy of the poster nor mention Trump’s faults in the same thread. The 2019 rule is that it must be done in a completely separate thread.

Here’s some examples you can try:

Boy, aren’t those tax and spend liberals awful, the way they just run up the deficit! (not allowed to mention Trump)
Remember all of Clinton’s problems with infidelity? (not allowed to mention Trump)
I didn’t like Obama because he thought he was better than everyone else. Remember his gaffes? (not allowed to bring up Trump)

If you bring up Trump its a “whataboutism” or a “but Trump”…you know, a disingenuous argument tactic.

So there’s actually a lot to digest here regarding what is a “whataboutism” and what is actual relevant hypocrisy. Also, we need to understand what is hypocrisy in the first place.

On the first point, a whataboutism is when you point to a similar incident, in the past, usually by an irrelevant politician who isn’t around anymore, to justify (or switch the focus away from) the current, relevant politician that you support. It often ignores whether or not that politician suffered any consequences for his actions, or if you even supported the incident at the time.

An example might be, “but Clinton cheated on his wife.” Yes, and he was impeached as a result. He also lost Gore the election. In addition, a lot of people didn’t approve of his actions and made them switch their support, or they didn’t think it was important then and don’t think its important now. So the fact that he did it, in and of itself, is irrelevant.

However, if someone was a fervent defender of Clinton’s affairs at the time, and now attacks Trump for his affair, this is no longer a whataboutism. Its hypocrisy and, unless you follow the new GOP 2019 rules, it would be a pertinent point to bring up in the very same thread.

The other key piece is understanding WHO is being hypocritical. For example, one party in particular (lets see if you can figure out which one it is) has a history of making honor and integrity in the white house of upmost importance, and that they need their President to have strong, Christian values. This goes back at least 4 decades, now.

When someone says, “Hey, you fervent supporter of strong moral Christian values, you know that Trump has had multiple affairs,” they are not saying that Trump’s affairs are important to themselves. They are pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump supporter. Nevertheless, in whacky upside down dittohead I’ll-say-anything-to-defend-my-guy world, they often respond, “YOU’RE the hypocrite because you never cared about infidelity before.” No…that wasn’t the point.

Anyway, always remember. You will NEVER win a debate with these people. They aren’t interested in an honest discussion, only in doing whatever gorilla marketing tactics it takes to support Heir Trump.

[oldandslow]

They aren’t interested in an honest discussion, only in doing whatever gorilla marketing tactics it takes to support Heir Trump.

[jkca1]

You like making rules for your imaginary Kkngdom don’t you?

[Sanuk]

The funny thing is that I am already hearing why you shouldn’t vote for a Democrat in 2020.

Trump supporters right here are saying it’s because they will run up the debt, the candidates have lied or they have no clue about foreign policy and they say it without the slightest sense of hypocrisy. I often feel like half the population is hearing and seeing things that the other half don’t see or hear. Kind of like Stranger Things and the underworld, 2 parallel worlds running side by side.

[BarryP]

An example of yet another dittohead tactic: flip the argument around to make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Barry: “The right has created new rules.”
jkca1: “Barry said he’s making new rules.”

[Buster_Scrugs]

So the tactic for 2019 appears to be focus on irrelevant Democrat politicians’ character flaws that are, in ways, similar to Trump’s personal flaws. Not surprisingly, in most cases, the flaws pale in comparison to Trump.

Which naturally illicit’s the response, “But the current President, whom you support, is much worse. How come you don’t care about that?”

Insert 2019’s NEW RULE. You are not allowed to point out the hypocrisy of the poster nor mention Trump’s faults in the same thread. The 2019 rule is that it must be done in a completely separate thread.

Here’s some examples you can try:

Boy, aren’t those tax and spend liberals awful, the way they just run up the deficit! (not allowed to mention Trump)
Remember all of Clinton’s problems with infidelity? (not allowed to mention Trump)
I didn’t like Obama because he thought he was better than everyone else. Remember his gaffes? (not allowed to bring up Trump)

If you bring up Trump its a “whataboutism” or a “but Trump”…you know, a disingenuous argument tactic.

So there’s actually a lot to digest here regarding what is a “whataboutism” and what is actual relevant hypocrisy. Also, we need to understand what is hypocrisy in the first place.

On the first point, a whataboutism is when you point to a similar incident, in the past, usually by an irrelevant politician who isn’t around anymore, to justify (or switch the focus away from) the current, relevant politician that you support. It often ignores whether or not that politician suffered any consequences for his actions, or if you even supported the incident at the time.

An example might be, “but Clinton cheated on his wife.” Yes, and he was impeached as a result. He also lost Gore the election. In addition, a lot of people didn’t approve of his actions and made them switch their support, or they didn’t think it was important then and don’t think its important now. So the fact that he did it, in and of itself, is irrelevant.

However, if someone was a fervent defender of Clinton’s affairs at the time, and now attacks Trump for his affair, this is no longer a whataboutism. Its hypocrisy and, unless you follow the new GOP 2019 rules, it would be a pertinent point to bring up in the very same thread.

The other key piece is understanding WHO is being hypocritical. For example, one party in particular (lets see if you can figure out which one it is) has a history of making honor and integrity in the white house of upmost importance, and that they need their President to have strong, Christian values. This goes back at least 4 decades, now.

When someone says, “Hey, you fervent supporter of strong moral Christian values, you know that Trump has had multiple affairs,” they are not saying that Trump’s affairs are important to themselves. They are pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump supporter. Nevertheless, in whacky upside down dittohead I’ll-say-anything-to-defend-my-guy world, they often respond, “YOU’RE the hypocrite because you never cared about infidelity before.” No…that wasn’t the point.

Anyway, always remember. You will NEVER win a debate with these people. They aren’t interested in an honest discussion, only in doing whatever gorilla marketing tactics it takes to support Heir Trump.

This sooooo 2019 of you. I want to know what rules we should make up for 2020.

[SH]

I hear you on arguing with people that argue in bad faith. Unfortunately, this whataboutism rant has got too much special pleading in it – in both the arguments and the examples – to be very convincing.

Unfortunately, the problem you’re trying to solve is more complicated than this.

[BarryP]

This sooooo 2019 of you. I want to know what rules we should make up for 2020.

Well apparently the new rule is to take “Barry says that we’ve been doing this,” and repeat it as, “Barry is telling us we need to do this.”

Both quotes use a lot of the same words and a very similar sentence structure. The first is what actually happened, which is of little interest to you. The second does a much better job of denigrating a detractor of Heir Trump, which is your primary goal. I don’t think you need to wait until 2020.

[ubdawg]

The funny thing is that I am already hearing why you shouldn’t vote for a Democrat in 2020.

Trump supporters right here are saying it’s because they will run up the debt, the candidates have lied or they have no clue about foreign policy and they say it without the slightest sense of hypocrisy. I often feel like half the population is hearing and seeing things that the other half don’t see or hear. Kind of like Stranger Things and the underworld, 2 parallel worlds running side by side.

Or how about this one:

Your whole agreement is trash. It’s called the upside down.

[Buster_Scrugs]

This sooooo 2019 of you. I want to know what rules we should make up for 2020.

Well apparently the new rule is to take “Barry says that we’ve been doing this,” and repeat it as, “Barry is telling us we need to do this.”

Both quotes use a lot of the same words and a very similar sentence structure. The first is what actually happened, which is of little interest to you. The second does a much better job of denigrating a detractor of Heir Trump, which is your primary goal. I don’t think you need to wait until 2020.

God I admire you.

[ripple]

This sooooo 2019 of you. I want to know what rules we should make up for 2020.

Well apparently the new rule is to take “Barry says that we’ve been doing this,” and repeat it as, “Barry is telling us we need to do this.”

Both quotes use a lot of the same words and a very similar sentence structure. The first is what actually happened, which is of little interest to you. The second does a much better job of denigrating a detractor of **Heir **Trump, which is your primary goal. I don’t think you need to wait until 2020.
I think you mean Herr Trump.

My God you’re an idiot.

[sslothrop]

You like making rules for your imaginary Kkngdom don’t you?

It is hereby ordered…

[BarryP]

You got me on a spelling mistake. You go, girl!

[ripple]

You got me on a spelling mistake. You go, girl!
You’re the one telling us all how smart you are and how dumb we are. You couldn’t even get your DJT insult right. Good job. Slow clap. You’re a fucking tool.

[BarryP]

Again, I want to point out that the BEST you’ve managed to come up with is that I misspelled a German word. I mean, was that really the low hanging fruit?

[ripple]

I thought I was on your Barry-is-a-pussy super secret ignore list.

No?

You should probably start another thread where you try to convince yourself you’re the smartest guy in the room. It’d be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic.

[Sanuk]

Again, I want to point out that the BEST you’ve managed to come up with is that I misspelled a German word.

Which of course means that any and everything you say from now until the end of ST can’t be trusted, unless of course you write something the whatabouters agree with.

.

[ironmayb]

I thought I was on your Barry-is-a-pussy super secret ignore list.

No?

You should probably start another thread where you try to convince yourself you’re the smartest guy in the room. It’d be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic.

Cant all you stupid ditto heads just leave me alone. I just want to be left alone!!!

******

[Perseus]

We live in an environment full of overgeneralization and black and white thinking. For example, Trump’s personal moral failings didn’t magically make Hillary’s political stances on a many important issues align with Christian values. Furthermore, Few people understand nuance, or the idea that two things can be true at the same time. Some things Trump does are good and some are bad. Lastly, we’re in a tribal state where many people feel like they cannot concede any mistakes made by people on their side. I think this is an extension of overgeneralization.

[j_p_o]

“many people feel like they cannot concede any mistakes made by people on their side.”

This one gets comical. A lot of people would rather tie themselves into knots instead of just saying, “that was bad, they shouldn’t have done that.” That little phrase means you don’t have to defend idiocy any more.