Socialism

Socialism the best!!!

I wasn't enlightened, sorry. If we are going to make this simple, just say whether you agree that any "whataboutism" is a comparison. Yes or no? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hey Hedonist, I lied, my post was actually for Blackman's further enlightenment, on the subject of unemployment. You're already enlightened. I actually don't know what "whataboutism" is.

Hey Hedonist, I lied, my post was actually for Blackman's further enlightenment, on the subject of unemployment. You're already enlightened. I actually don't know what "whataboutism" is. Originally Posted by Tiny

It is about if HF had a bigger dick

You truly don’t understand what it means. I though you were being obtuse intentionally but instead maybe on this you really are just obtuse. Let me once more give you an example.




PersonA “hey Biden is passing legislation with no republicans, that’s not very bipartisan” - the implication of the statement is that Biden is being a partisan.

Person Bs response instead of discussing whether Biden is in fact being a partisan responds making making an unrelated equivalency by saying “well, Trump passed legislation without democrats” - the implication being that Biden’s behavior is OK because Trump did it. As in but whatabout Trumps actions instead of Discussing Biden’s action.


OK, let's apply that to the original subject of objecting to electors. When I brought up what Democrats had previously done, objecting to electors, I was not saying one party was OK and one wasn't, I was saying that what both parties did was OK ( read legal ) but that only one party was being accused of having done something wrong and I did address what Cruz and Hawley did, by explaining the historical similarities. So your application above didn't apply to me in any way, you just chose to make it so.


And how in the world can your example of Biden and Trump passing legislation without the other party, be considered "making an unrelated equivalency"?

Biden is passing legislation with no republicans

Trump passed legislation without democrats

Your words!!! That is an exact equivalency.



https://www.dictionary.com/e/whataboutisms/

If we’re being honest, we’re all guilty of whataboutism. It’s often a knee-jerk response or a last-resort defense when we’ve got no good way to answer a criticism or charge.

This is exactly what you and VitaMan and others did when I brought up a fact completely related to the topic of "objecting to the certification of electors". Instead of addressing that "fact", VitaMan ( I don't think you did this quite as blatantly ) said "this thread ( his thread or so he believes ) isn't about Democrats". He had no good answer to the fact that I just put to him( and neither did you ). Instead of acknowledging the "fact" that I just put to him and then continuing with his own argument that somehow what Cruz and Hawley did was some how different than what Maxine Waters and other Democrats did twice before. It wasn't different but the resulting criticism or in the case of Democrats, lack of criticism, was astounding.


And we see the very same thing going on now with this "inciting violence" argument, that is some how "different" when Republicans are accused of doing it as opposed to when Democrats such as Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris told people "get in the face" and "push back" against people who you disagree with politically. That is the very definition of inciting violence or in the case of Kamaa Harris, "warning" us that the people who were burning down buildings were "going to keep doing it", which is the very definition of inciting violence and then she has the nerve to contribute to a fund to bail out these criminals so they can continue to commit violent acts and not a peep from any Democrat calling it what it is, inciting violence? Or how about Chuck Shumer warning SC Justices that they will pay a price if they over turn Roe? That isn't inciting violence, calling for people to make somebody pay a price for their decision? Since SC Justices aren't elected, what other price might they pay? Be attacked, be threatened?



But back to our discussion of "whataboutism".

Critics who claim “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” in response to the Black Lives Matter movement are engaging in whataboutism. They deflect attention from the original issue to another issue without addressing the first.

I assume, this is what you are accusing me of. Problem with that is that I did address the original issue of Cruz and Hawley objecting to the certification of electors when I went into detail about it's legality in that it was perfectly legal to do and not illegal or un-Constitutional and detailed the history of such which you apparently chose to just ignore. I did not ignore what they did, I explained it and then went on to bring up the fact that Democrats had done this before.



I was not deflecting attention from the original issue, I explained my opinion of the original issue and wondered out loud why there seemed to be no understanding that this had indeed been done before by Democrats but now is met with silence and yes, deflection from that fact.


It is true and I acknowledge ( read understand ) that not acknowledging the "original issue" and changing the subject from the original issue to a different issue would be "whataboutism", but since I did neither, I did not fall into that category.


Since you accused me of doing something I did not do, I thought I would return the favor and see how you like it. Not much I see.

Now that differs greatly from making a comparison
Person A - “during the Trump years unemployment dropped 1.7%”
Person B - “during Obama’s term unemployment dropped 5%”.
That’s a simple comparison. Not a Whataboutism. I can’t help you more than I’ve tried.

You Whataboutism over and over because you can’t help it.
Person A “Hey people tried to overthrow the capital and killed 5 people.”
You - “people ran rampant in Portland and 15 people died during a riot”. Nothing to do with one another but YOU try to equivocate the events in a Whataboutism. Rather than discussing the merits of what occurred at the Capitol somehow in your mind those things need to be discussed together.

One day you’ll grow beyond the limitations of your argument style. One day. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So, people rioting in Portland, trying to break into a Federal building where over the course of the summer more than 40 people were killed in riots and hundreds of federal officers and law enforcement were injured has nothing to do with, can't be compared to people rioting and breaking into a federal building in DC, killing and injuring fewer people than the summer riots? Really? They have nothing to do with each other? Riots, federal buildings, people died and injured? Difference between the two is that Democrats want the Portland offenders bailed out and the DC offenders prosecuted.


It is only because you don't want to see the similarities that are in play here, as it has always been. You couldn't be more partisan if you tried and you try real, real hard but it is easy for other people to see.

Hey Hedonist, I lied, my post was actually for Blackman's further enlightenment, on the subject of unemployment. You're already enlightened. I actually don't know what "whataboutism" is. Originally Posted by Tiny

I thought that might have been the case but I wasn't sure.


Contrary to what 1blackman1 thinks, I do know what "whataboutism" means and in the original argument of objecting to electors, I did not engage in "whataboutism" since the definition according to 1blackman1, must contain the element of, "making an unrelated equivalency" and not addressing the previous argument before making an "unrelated equivalency". The entire discussion ( objecting to electors ) was in fact, the equivalency, that both parties did the very same thing but only one party refuses to acknowledge the fact because it would hurt their narrative to admit as much.


In my "comparison argument", any time a person compares what one President did to another President, they might as well start their sentence with "what about what President "A" did in comparison to what President "B" did. While it doesn't meet the more well defined definition which includes not acknowledging one part of the argument with making a false equivalency, it can be easily understood to mean, "what about what one person did compared to another".


People that are quick to throw out "whataboutism" are most likely, hell, always, ones that do not want to address, can't not debate the matter so they throw out a word like racist, sexist, bigot thinking they can shut down the other person. Doesn't work for me because I know that other people recognize this tactic for what it is. Fear of an honest debate.


Never be afraid to admit a fact such as person "B" did the same thing person "A" did for fear of being called the dreaded word that is suppose to strike shame in anybody, "you engaged in "whataboutism". Oh, the shame, the horror! When the shame belongs on the one unwilling to debate the fact that makes them uncomfortable which 1blackman" has a habit of doing. You don't want to address a matter, call them a name and that will suffice as debate. Sad.

What 1blackman1 is attempting to get you to believe, is that I was saying that what Republicans Hawley and Cruz did was OK but what Democrats did wasn't, which is not true. The question is, did he know that wasn't true when he made the accusation or did he not care. I know which one I believe.


The two elements of "whataboutism". Not wanting to engage in the original argument, I did. And using a false equivalency, I did not, it was exactly the same. Hence, no "whataboutism" on my part.


Democrats did it, it was legal. Republicans did it, it was legal but only one party is willing to admit it. 1blackman1 isn't.

One day you’ll grow beyond the limitations of your argument style. One day. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

One day you may decide that telling the truth is more important than pushing your narrative but I sincerely doubt it.

I thought that might have been the case but I wasn't sure. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hedonist quoting Blackman: Nothing to do with one another but YOU try to equivocate the events in a Whataboutism. Rather than discussing the merits of what occurred at the Capitol somehow in your mind those things need to be discussed together.

One day you’ll grow beyond the limitations of your argument style. One day. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hmm, well, I think we all need to engage in a lot more whataboutism. Only the paranoid survive. I don't know whether it's a bunch of Antifa types or KKK'ers who are coming for us, but damn well know a well fortified underground bunker with plenty of ammo, freeze dried food, water, first aid supplies and fuel can't hurt. I'm stockpiling condoms, tampons, Hennessy, Malibu Rum and mixers too, as I think I can get a few wenches to wait it out with me. They will when they realize it's either that or a gruesome death.

HF - Thank you for a nice post on teh 'whataboutism' in debate.
unfortunately - regarding teh DPST/ccp- you post Pearls before Swine. So to speak.


Yet Remember - nazi pelosi is free to label Republicans and conservatives 'the enemy within" - with its' not so veiled threat of consequences and violence-
And that is just fine to whiny DPST/ccp Hypocrites - but don't dare criticize the AOC crisis of 'trauma of a sexual assault survivor (a never before revealed or documented PR scam to subsitute sympathy for FACTS and TRuth) - that is not acceptable.

Unless Rep Greene opens her mouth - then women are not to be believed based on ideology.




Open Question for '1b1' -s it acceptable to you that Pelosi defines all who differ with her as 'enemies of teh State"????
Do you share her POV on the matter?
To borrow from SR- If so,Why???
Perhaps 'j' and 'r' can chime in, as well.

so we'll put you down for #2 then... Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Nope. Your theory is incorrect.

You surely don’t expect that I’ll read all of that.

You surely don’t expect that I’ll read all of that. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

hmmmmmm???????????????????

esplains lots

hmmmmmm???????????????????

esplains lots Originally Posted by winn dixie

Really

You surely don’t expect that I’ll read all of that. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

No I don't. When you told me you didn't have time to read what I wrote about a Black woman put in charge of HHS who said that Blacks were superior to Whites, but you did have the time to write and tell me you didn't have time to read a couple of paragraphs, told me everything I needed to know. You aren't interested in honest debate, only pushing your narrative.


You were right in your explanation of "whataboutism" although it is a made up word and we are not obliged to accept the inventors definition as gospel.


If in debate, one fails to address the topic presented, in this case, Republicans taking to the floor of the House to object to certification of electors, one has met the first element of "whataboutism", ignoring the subject of debate.


I did not. I explained that Republicans had the right to do what they did under federal statutory law.



If in debate, you change the subject to something not equivalent to the topic, you have met another element of "whataboutism". Comparing what Democrats did and Republicans did and being exactly the same thing, was giving equivalency.


Which is what I did.


And with equivalency being established, to say one party is right and one wrong for doing the same thing would of course be wrong.


I did not.


So you lied about what I said. Did you not know you were lying and you just had a reading comprehension problem or did you know you were lying about what I said but did it anyway because you couldn't acknowledge that both parties had done exactly the same thing because it was to important to your narrative not to acknowledge that both parties had done the same thing. So instead of engaging in honest debate, admitting that both parties had done the same thing, you chose to use a word that did not apply to what I had said. The cowards way out of honest debate. Like using the word racist in hopes of shutting down the person one is debating.

Really Originally Posted by WTF

Point made.