You clearly don’t understand what the fallacy is if you’re actually dumb enough to post an article to try and justify it. Here’s a quick run down for your own benefit. Whataboutism is the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse (This is the Merriam Webster definition). There are three reasons why this is fallacious:
The “what about” part is irrelevant to the original statement or argument. By dismissing the original point and entirely focusing entirely on the “what about” part, the person gets to use the “what about” as misdirection to avoid directly addressing what was already said. If you know your fallacies well, you would know that this sounds eerily familiar to the red herring fallacy. Not exactly the same, but very close.
It implies that because entity B did something just as bad or worse, that justifies entity A doing the same thing… when that’s not the case. If I stole a bike three years 3 years ago, that doesn’t justify you stealing a bike now. You criticizing me for stealing the bike 3 years ago doesn’t make your criticism wrong even if you stole a bike this morning, but it also doesn’t justify you stealing the bike. The point is that both actions are wrong, each entity is responisble for it’s own actions. One doesn’t justify, excuse, or negate the other.
The whataboutism fallacy is a variant of the Tu Quouque fallacy (that’s not a bonus, that’s literally what it is) which is a subsection of the ad hominem argument. An ad hom becomes fallacious when an a character attack is used in place of an actual argument. Which is what happens with whataboutism. The person using it is replacing an actual argument with a charged accusation of hypocrisy and nothing more, which is basically just a character attack.
In this case, the OP of this comment thread made a hypothetical scenario poking fun at the authoritarianism, poor working conditions, and the corruption that is so often found in socialist states. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but if you want to make rebuttal against it, you have to actually address it. The second commenter in this thread did not address it. Instead he brought up a random point about American companies promoting lead. Not only is his comment an irrelevant non-sequitur, but it doesn’t disprove the point that OP was trying to make. That second commenter is clearly a Marxist who got offended by the point that the OP made, and so he quickly resorted to the “what about the US” fallback tactic to both avoid addressing the point that was actually made and to pull a weak “gotcha”. It’s the ol’ classic “oh yeah? but look at the US is bad therefore Marxism is good/not as bad/excused/justified in doing shitty thing”. It’s inconsistent logic.
Then again, Marxism is truly a brain dead ideology. Without propaganda about the US, the entire school of thought would collapse. What is there left to a firmly failed ideology that failed in both theory and practice? Nothing.
wow you sound like an expert in logical fallacies, you must have studied them really hard.
Can you put the fallacious statement you identified in this thread into a logical statement, and then explain how it’s fallacious? Feel free to use formal symbols!
It would really help me understand the fallacy, and it must be easy for you to do as an expert.
You clearly don’t understand what the fallacy is if you’re actually dumb enough to post an article to try and justify it. Here’s a quick run down for your own benefit. Whataboutism is the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse (This is the Merriam Webster definition). There are three reasons why this is fallacious:
The “what about” part is irrelevant to the original statement or argument. By dismissing the original point and entirely focusing entirely on the “what about” part, the person gets to use the “what about” as misdirection to avoid directly addressing what was already said. If you know your fallacies well, you would know that this sounds eerily familiar to the red herring fallacy. Not exactly the same, but very close.
It implies that because entity B did something just as bad or worse, that justifies entity A doing the same thing… when that’s not the case. If I stole a bike three years 3 years ago, that doesn’t justify you stealing a bike now. You criticizing me for stealing the bike 3 years ago doesn’t make your criticism wrong even if you stole a bike this morning, but it also doesn’t justify you stealing the bike. The point is that both actions are wrong, each entity is responisble for it’s own actions. One doesn’t justify, excuse, or negate the other.
The whataboutism fallacy is a variant of the Tu Quouque fallacy (that’s not a bonus, that’s literally what it is) which is a subsection of the ad hominem argument. An ad hom becomes fallacious when an a character attack is used in place of an actual argument. Which is what happens with whataboutism. The person using it is replacing an actual argument with a charged accusation of hypocrisy and nothing more, which is basically just a character attack.
In this case, the OP of this comment thread made a hypothetical scenario poking fun at the authoritarianism, poor working conditions, and the corruption that is so often found in socialist states. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but if you want to make rebuttal against it, you have to actually address it. The second commenter in this thread did not address it. Instead he brought up a random point about American companies promoting lead. Not only is his comment an irrelevant non-sequitur, but it doesn’t disprove the point that OP was trying to make. That second commenter is clearly a Marxist who got offended by the point that the OP made, and so he quickly resorted to the “what about the US” fallback tactic to both avoid addressing the point that was actually made and to pull a weak “gotcha”. It’s the ol’ classic “oh yeah? but look at the US is bad therefore Marxism is good/not as bad/excused/justified in doing shitty thing”. It’s inconsistent logic.
Then again, Marxism is truly a brain dead ideology. Without propaganda about the US, the entire school of thought would collapse. What is there left to a firmly failed ideology that failed in both theory and practice? Nothing.
wow you sound like an expert in logical fallacies, you must have studied them really hard.
Can you put the fallacious statement you identified in this thread into a logical statement, and then explain how it’s fallacious? Feel free to use formal symbols!
It would really help me understand the fallacy, and it must be easy for you to do as an expert.
Removed by mod
Premise: Premise: Conclusion:Fill the blanks, then explain what’s fallacious.