Whataboutism is when you bring up something about person A, then the only argument against it is something relating to person B.
For example, when you point out the call the president made to the secretary of state in Georgia begging him to "find" 11,780 votes. Then, without a great excuse, the other person brings up Biden's mental decline.
Both true, both concerning, but the reply just being blatant and desperate misdirection.
...no it isn't? Whataboutism is when you redirect attention from issue #1 to unrelated issue #2 in an attempt to change the conversation topic: "forget that, look at this!"
OP's comment was pointing out the similarities between issue #1 and issue #2. There's no dismissal.
Whataboutism is when you are trying to show a double standard because person A did a thing that you were upset about and person B did the same thing and you don't care. Asking why you care about a person doing a thing and didn't care when a different person did something different is not whataboutism.
> The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors.
Both Clintons private email server, Pete signal chats and Trump documents stash in Mar-a-lago are equally bad. Lack of consequences signal erosion of “Law and order” in the US. It seems that US is now not different from third rate countries where last minute exceptions, insider trading, open bribery, secret police(ICE) and targeted prosecution is a new norm.
The dismissal is implied. And this behavior is endemic in modern reporting and political conversation.
Novel idea: what if we focus on the exact issue that was originally brought up?
'Someone else did it, or something like it, sometime, somewhere.' I'm past caring about that -- because it's used too frequently to distract from the current issue.
A. Hegseth broke the law and shared classified information on a system that wasn't approved for it.
B. Or, he unilaterally declassified operational details without informing anyone or going through a normal process.
It can only be one of the two above options, because the facts aren't in question.
kacesensitive|10 months ago
Whataboutism is when you bring up something about person A, then the only argument against it is something relating to person B.
For example, when you point out the call the president made to the secretary of state in Georgia begging him to "find" 11,780 votes. Then, without a great excuse, the other person brings up Biden's mental decline.
Both true, both concerning, but the reply just being blatant and desperate misdirection.
HPsquared|10 months ago
inverted_flag|10 months ago
FrustratedMonky|10 months ago
daveguy|10 months ago
TaurenHunter|10 months ago
[deleted]
afavour|10 months ago
OP's comment was pointing out the similarities between issue #1 and issue #2. There's no dismissal.
wang_li|10 months ago
Chyzwar|10 months ago
Both Clintons private email server, Pete signal chats and Trump documents stash in Mar-a-lago are equally bad. Lack of consequences signal erosion of “Law and order” in the US. It seems that US is now not different from third rate countries where last minute exceptions, insider trading, open bribery, secret police(ICE) and targeted prosecution is a new norm.
ethbr1|10 months ago
Novel idea: what if we focus on the exact issue that was originally brought up?
'Someone else did it, or something like it, sometime, somewhere.' I'm past caring about that -- because it's used too frequently to distract from the current issue.
A. Hegseth broke the law and shared classified information on a system that wasn't approved for it.
B. Or, he unilaterally declassified operational details without informing anyone or going through a normal process.
It can only be one of the two above options, because the facts aren't in question.
Edit: But looks like National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be taking the fall for this: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t