• 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!

Will you take a pledge to avoid "whataboutism" arguments?

Will you take a pledge to avoid "whataboutism" arguments?

  • I agree to never make "whataboutism" arguments from here on out.

    Votes: 11 37.9%

  • Yo mamma. I'll use "whataboutism" when and where I feel like it.

    Votes: 18 62.1%
  • Total voters
    29
Cardinal said:
I have taken to making whataboutist arguments fairly regularly in response to what I perceive as what has come to be a standard debate tactic from the Right. It was pointed out to me in another thread just now that I made a whataboutist post (which was, to be fair, in response to a whataboutist post). Regardless, there is no doubting that anybody who uses whataboutism is just part of an ongoing problem that effectively breaks debate. I would stop using it, except for the feeling that if everybody on the left were to stop using whataboutism, it would really just be the Right who engages in the tactic (the "prisoner's dilemma").

Therefore I came up with the idea of a pledge to avoid using whataboutism arguments. But in order to avoid a prisoner's dilemma situation, the pledge would only apply within the group of people who also make the pledge. In other words, for every person who takes the pledge, I agree never to use whataboutism in response to their posts (until or unless, of course, they break that pledge). It's just a rough idea at the moment, but it seems okay on the surface of it.

What say ye?

For those who may be compelled to say, "How about you just don't use whataboutism?" I'll say in response, "You know who you are, and you know if this applies to you." Also, that "prisoner's dilemma" thing.
Click to expand...

Whataboutism is valid and needed.

It is a needed response to hypocrisy.

We should use it anytime people propose that a sin is sin for others while doing it themselves.

At that point we say......Wait a minute......what about?

Get it?

:)
 
cuban smokes said:
I see TrumpPutins here @ DP all the time doing the Obama whataboutism & the Hillary wahataboutism.

They constantly wreck & derail threads with their bull**** whataboutisms.

They will just keep on doing it; they don't have anything else.
Click to expand...

So when you blamed Bush, that was whataboutism.
 
People who complain about whataboutism are often just hypocrites who want to get away with having it both ways.
 
I voted "yo momma..." mainly because the OP title does not match the question. The title is a reasonable request to avoid using such arguments (which, to me, means you could still use arguments pointing out hypocrisy of any position, especially if the poster's personal position on something is directly hypocritical to how they are posting based on the person/situation presented) rather than to agree to absolutely never use such an argument, especially given the difference of opinion on what a "whataboutism" argument actually entails. I've seen such arguments from both sides. There is certainly some merit into bringing up certain past events, people, situations, positions that could add value to the argument within a thread. At the same time, the reason behind doing such things should make the difference between it being a valid piece of the argument or an attempt to shift the thread or avoid the actual arguments being made by directing attention to someone else or another event that someone else may (or may not, many people fail to actually know the positions of those they are debating) hold, felt the opposite about in the past.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
People who complain about whataboutism are often just hypocrites who want to get away with having it both ways.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for a double standard, Libbos wouldn't have any standards.
 
apdst said:
Are YOU taking this pledge?
Click to expand...

I already make a conscious effort to not engage in whataboutism. Not perfect at it but I am aware of it and try like to not use it. So I really don't see a need to take a pledge to do something I already do.
 
roguenuke said:
I voted "yo momma..." mainly because the OP title does not match the question. The title is a reasonable request to avoid using such arguments (which, to me, means you could still use arguments pointing out hypocrisy of any position, especially if the poster's personal position on something is directly hypocritical to how they are posting based on the person/situation presented) rather than to agree to absolutely never use such an argument, especially given the difference of opinion on what a "whataboutism" argument actually entails. I've seen such arguments from both sides. There is certainly some merit into bringing up certain past events, people, situations, positions that could add value to the argument within a thread. At the same time, the reason behind doing such things should make the difference between it being a valid piece of the argument or an attempt to shift the thread or avoid the actual arguments being made by directing attention to someone else or another event that someone else may (or may not, many people fail to actually know the positions of those they are debating) hold, felt the opposite about in the past.
Click to expand...

True, the questions aren't identical, and that was negligent on my part, but I feel like the explanation in the OP made the intent clear, which is that it would be a pact rather than an agreement to avoid whataboutism even in the face of those who felt free to use it.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
I have taken to making whataboutist arguments fairly regularly in response to what I perceive as what has come to be a standard debate tactic from the Right. It was pointed out to me in another thread just now that I made a whataboutist post (which was, to be fair, in response to a whataboutist post). Regardless, there is no doubting that anybody who uses whataboutism is just part of an ongoing problem that effectively breaks debate. I would stop using it, except for the feeling that if everybody on the left were to stop using whataboutism, it would really just be the Right who engages in the tactic (the "prisoner's dilemma").

Therefore I came up with the idea of a pledge to avoid using whataboutism arguments. But in order to avoid a prisoner's dilemma situation, the pledge would only apply within the group of people who also make the pledge. In other words, for every person who takes the pledge, I agree never to use whataboutism in response to their posts (until or unless, of course, they break that pledge). It's just a rough idea at the moment, but it seems okay on the surface of it.

What say ye?

For those who may be compelled to say, "How about you just don't use whataboutism?" I'll say in response, "You know who you are, and you know if this applies to you." Also, that "prisoner's dilemma" thing.
Click to expand...

^^^^

Still waiting for what the OP's actual definition of "whataboutism" is.

It is, in fact, logically and epistemologically valid to point out that X's behavior is consistent with past holders of X's office, especially when the charge is something along the lines of said behavior being outrageous. That it was not considered outrageous until it was X doing it is a perfectly reasonable to thing to point out.

It is also, in fact, logically and epistemologically valid to point out someone's objection being hypocritical, especially when said objection is raised toward supposed hypocrisy itself.

There are tu quoque fallacies. But not every instance of referencing past behavior is that. There is also valid perspective and context, as nothing happens in a vacuum, and both politics and history are continuums.

So if the OP would care to define exactly what "whataboutism" entails, then it would be a more meaningful pledge.
 
Last edited:
Rogue Valley said:
I've found there is a correlation between whataboutism and dodging inescapable truths.

It's far easier to use the whataboutism card than to honestly admit you've got nothing relevant and germane.
Click to expand...

In other words, you accept partisan hacks posting endlessly about the other side when their side does the same freaking thing.

OMG...……………..let's just ban the word hypocrite on Debate Politics!

Liberal and Republican hacks can have a freaking orgy.
 
Gaius46 said:
I already make a conscious effort to not engage in whataboutism. Not perfect at it but I am aware of it and try like to not use it. So I really don't see a need to take a pledge to do something I already do.
Click to expand...

I meant to respond to Cardinal. That's my mistake.
 
in British accent:

"I think this thread went well. What do you think?"
 
As I see it, a point remains, whatever bias exists. It's only an issue, insofar as we assume it goes unnoticed. That could be an insult or an unfounded misgiving.

On a forum such as this one, there's the reasonable expectation that one's audience isn't mentally sub-normal. As such, devices likely won't pass as sleeping breaths.

Much ado....
 
Cardinal said:
It's clear that you've staked out your position on this matter. Thank you for your contribution.
Click to expand...

I think he has a point, though, Card... There are times when it is valid to question a reaction to something when that reaction is different than when the thing has happened before. If the debate is whether or not something is bad, it's valid to ask why is it bad in this situation, but not in a similar one.

It's obvious when someone is using whataboutery to derail a discussion...but I would suggest if that's all your opponent has to offer, it wasn't going to be a good debate anyway. Roll your eyes, cut your losses....or have fun grinding them into the sidewalk...hehe...

But I think whataboutery can be used to generate some really good discussion, if both or all parties are committed to having a good discussion. You might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one, brother..... :)
 
apdst said:
To refer to, in the future. That's why I said "for future reference".
Click to expand...

Okay, and why would you use it for future reference? Keep in mind that I expect your answer to be really, really stupid.
 
Cardinal said:
in British accent:

"I think this thread went well. What do you think?"
Click to expand...

What did you expect?

You still haven't actually defined "whataboutism." Without that, how does this not look like an attempt on your part to shut down whole avenues of argument because you find them inconvenient? It certainly looks like you want the definition to be as vague as possible so you can use it to maximum effect.

Is this a pledge you would have taken if it were your own guys in office and your own guys taking the heat? Would you pledge to never bring up anything from the past while responding to criticism of things and of people you agree with?
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, and why would you use it for future reference? Keep in mind that I expect your answer to be really, really stupid.
Click to expand...

IOW, nothing I can say will change you mind. So, what's the point?

You might have been better off pledging to cease the personal attacks when you run out of something intelligent to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom