• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Whataboutisms" should be infractible offenses

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phys251

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,617
Reaction score
51,634
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'll begin with an example. Let's suppose someone posts a news story or other finding about Joe Biden that paints him in a bad light, and someone responds with the time that Trump did something similar or worse. As many of us know, that's called a "whataboutism." It's a form of thread-jacking, and it happens with regularity here. I have no way of knowing if that's an infractible offense, but if it's not, it should be.

However, pressing the OP as to whether the issue raised is really that important or serious is not necessarily whataboutism. I raise this point because such a reply could be construed as indirect whataboutism, and I admit that the line could get blurry if that is the clear intent of the person who makes it. For instance, suppose that someone else were to write an OP accusing Biden of an act of corruption, and someone else were to question the OP writer as to whether said corruption should really be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. That's likely a reference to Trump, but it could also be a sincere question as to whether that issue should be an issue at all in a presidential election.
 
I hear you but... you are asking to place DP Staff in the worst of positions, to determine what is and is not whataboutsism as a rule perhaps ultimately filling up the complaint box on that line of association between examples and thread hijacking to avoid discussion on some issue.
 
LOL if whataboutism became an offense, 90% of the libs would be suspended in no time- their usual replies are, "but, but, but Trump!" :lol:
 
Phys251 said:
I'll begin with an example. Let's suppose someone posts a news story or other finding about Joe Biden that paints him in a bad light, and someone responds with the time that Trump did something similar or worse. As many of us know, that's called a "whataboutism." It's a form of thread-jacking, and it happens with regularity here. I have no way of knowing if that's an infractible offense, but if it's not, it should be.

However, pressing the OP as to whether the issue raised is really that important or serious is not necessarily whataboutism. I raise this point because such a reply could be construed as indirect whataboutism, and I admit that the line could get blurry if that is the clear intent of the person who makes it. For instance, suppose that someone else were to write an OP accusing Biden of an act of corruption, and someone else were to question the OP writer as to whether said corruption should really be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. That's likely a reference to Trump, but it could also be a sincere question as to whether that issue should be an issue at all in a presidential election.
Click to expand...

Nah, man, I get your frustration, but this is probably not going to work out the way you want, even if they did start infracting folks for this. There is valid whataboutery and invalid whataboutery, and anyone you care about is going to recognize the difference. If folks are going to be ignorant, I generally let them... It's always entertaining to see how badly someone is willing to intellectually embarrass themselves when they're losing in a debate forum. :lol: You wouldn't want to "legislate" that away, would you? ;)
 
OlNate said:
Nah, man, I get your frustration, but this is probably not going to work out the way you want, even if they did start infracting folks for this. There is valid whataboutery and invalid whataboutery, and anyone you care about is going to recognize the difference. If folks are going to be ignorant, I generally let them... It's always entertaining to see how badly someone is willing to intellectually embarrass themselves when they're losing in a debate forum. :lol: You wouldn't want to "legislate" that away, would you? ;)
Click to expand...

While I see your point, letting whataboutisms go just allows a discussion to turn into a food fight. If someone doesn't like what's being written in a thread, and they have no way to refute it, they are free to leave.
 
PoS said:
LOL if whataboutism became an offense, 90% of the libs would be suspended in no time- their usual replies are, "but, but, but Trump!" :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol: given that the OP was likely a result of some righty whataboutery, I must give you props, sir, for whatabouting in an anti-whataboutery thread. :thumbs:
 
Biden’s entire campaign is a whataboutism. :lol:
 
PoS said:
LOL if whataboutism became an offense, 90% of the libs would be suspended in no time- their usual replies are, "but, but, but Trump!" :lol:
Click to expand...

I mean, do liberals even read what other liberals post. :mrgreen:
 
Phys251 said:
While I see your point, letting whataboutisms go just allows a discussion to turn into a food fight. If someone doesn't like what's being written in a thread, and they have no way to refute it, they are free to leave.
Click to expand...

haha...my brother...this is a food fight. :lol: Whether you respond with seriousness, laughter, anger, or anything at all really is up to you. Again, everyone who matters can spot weak debate tactics. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves, let them. :shrug: We aren't changing minds or saving lives here. When someone responds to a solid point with whataboutery, everyone understands that as the white flag it is. Relish those moments, enjoy them, draw them out, for everyone to see. It means you won. :)
 
Phys251 said:
I'll begin with an example. Let's suppose someone posts a news story or other finding about Joe Biden that paints him in a bad light, and someone responds with the time that Trump did something similar or worse. As many of us know, that's called a "whataboutism." It's a form of thread-jacking, and it happens with regularity here. I have no way of knowing if that's an infractible offense, but if it's not, it should be.

However, pressing the OP as to whether the issue raised is really that important or serious is not necessarily whataboutism. I raise this point because such a reply could be construed as indirect whataboutism, and I admit that the line could get blurry if that is the clear intent of the person who makes it. For instance, suppose that someone else were to write an OP accusing Biden of an act of corruption, and someone else were to question the OP writer as to whether said corruption should really be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. That's likely a reference to Trump, but it could also be a sincere question as to whether that issue should be an issue at all in a presidential election.
Click to expand...

Such a rule would be murky I imagine. Someone's whataboutism is another's logical defence.
 
OlNate said:
haha...my brother...this is a food fight. :lol: Whether you respond with seriousness, laughter, anger, or anything at all really is up to you. Again, everyone who matters can spot weak debate tactics. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves, let them. :shrug: We aren't changing minds or saving lives here. When someone responds to a solid point with whataboutery, everyone understands that as the white flag it is. Relish those moments, enjoy them, draw them out, for everyone to see. It means you won. :)
Click to expand...

To each their own. Personally I find it refreshing to have a rare moment of a fair back-and-forth with someone with whom I disagree.

But food fights? I could get those all day long at 4chan. No thanks. :mad:
 
X Factor said:
Biden’s entire campaign is a whataboutism. :lol:
Click to expand...

:lamo This is actually a true thing. Then again, so was Trump's in 2016....though most of his **** was made up. It's actually a pretty good demonstration of the difference between Dem and Republican whataboutery, actually... ;) :lol:
 
OlNate said:
:lol: given that the OP was likely a result of some righty whataboutery, I must give you props, sir, for whatabouting in an anti-whataboutery thread. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

The best part about being a lefty must be the part where you’re never the one responsible for anything. :2razz:
 
OlNate said:
:lol: given that the OP was likely a result of some righty whataboutery, I must give you props, sir, for whatabouting in an anti-whataboutery thread. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

What can I say, I cant help but warn a clown when he's about to shoot himself in the foot. :2razz:
 
Phys251 said:
To each their own. Personally I find it refreshing to have a rare moment of a fair back-and-forth with someone with whom I disagree.

But food fights? I could get those all day long at 4chan. No thanks. :mad:
Click to expand...

lol...28k posts in, you know who the folks are that will give you that good discussion, and who shows up to be the clown show. If you don't like the clown show, be above it, and ignore it. Or burn them with fire...it's easy to do... :lol: If someone has to resort to irrelevant whataboutery, you know they're a weak debater. That should make it easy to either ignore them, or to grind their bones to make your bread. You don't need help from the mods to do either of those things. :)
 
X Factor said:
The best part about being a lefty must be the part where you’re never the one responsible for anything. :2razz:
Click to expand...

No, that's the best part of being a Canadian. :lamo
 
PoS said:
What can I say, I cant help but warn a clown when he's about to shoot himself in the foot. :2razz:
Click to expand...

If that’s the case you must be getting around in a wheelchair!

:lamo
 
Complaining about use of a "whataboutism" is simply a way of trying to prevent someone (anyone?) from posting an analogy (or reference to a similar situation) by calling it a form of thread-jacking.

For example, if the thread title is "Joe Biden should be arrested for having done/said X" then is the thread topic "Joe Biden" or "getting arrested for having done/said X"? If one assumes the latter case then it is completely reasonable to cite other examples of people having done/said X and noting what (if any) negative legal consequences resulted.
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
What can I say, I cant help but warn a clown when he's about to shoot himself in the foot. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I was gonna say something mean, but honestly, given your familiarity with shooting yourself in the foot, you're someone we should probably listen to on the subject.... We filthy lefties pride ourselves on listening to experts, after all... :lamo
 
OlNate said:
:lamo This is actually a true thing. Then again, so was Trump's in 2016....though most of his **** was made up. It's actually a pretty good demonstration of the difference between Dem and Republican whataboutery, actually... ;) :lol:
Click to expand...

I know, it’s just different and better when it comes from your side. ;) :lol:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Complaining about use of a "whataboutism" is simply way of trying to prevent someone (anyone?) from posting an analogy (or reference to a similar situation) by calling it a form of thread-jacking.

For example, if the thread title is "Joe Biden should be arrested for having done/said X" then is the thread topic "Joe Biden" or "getting arrested for having done/said X"? If one assumes the latter case then it is completely reasonable to cite other examples of people having done/said X and noting what (if any) negative legal consequences resulted.
Click to expand...

But, of course, we understand that some people also use it as a way to troll and derail threads...lol... Help this guy out and let him know that you can spot the difference.
 
PoS said:
LOL if whataboutism became an offense, 90% of the libs would be suspended in no time- their usual replies are, "but, but, but Trump!" :lol:
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that we could conform to a No Whataboutism rule much better than you people ever would. :)
 
Phys251 said:
I'll begin with an example. Let's suppose someone posts a news story or other finding about Joe Biden that paints him in a bad light, and someone responds with the time that Trump did something similar or worse. As many of us know, that's called a "whataboutism." It's a form of thread-jacking, and it happens with regularity here. I have no way of knowing if that's an infractible offense, but if it's not, it should be.

However, pressing the OP as to whether the issue raised is really that important or serious is not necessarily whataboutism. I raise this point because such a reply could be construed as indirect whataboutism, and I admit that the line could get blurry if that is the clear intent of the person who makes it. For instance, suppose that someone else were to write an OP accusing Biden of an act of corruption, and someone else were to question the OP writer as to whether said corruption should really be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. That's likely a reference to Trump, but it could also be a sincere question as to whether that issue should be an issue at all in a presidential election.
Click to expand...

Between the election this year, and COVID, and the growing partisan divide, you all make so much work for us it is hard to keep up. So I do not see us adding any more rules about what people cannot post. In addition, it is not good for mods to be the ones who decide what is a valid argument and what isn't.

Moderator's Warning:
Question answered, thread closed due to it already turning into a partisan ****show.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom