Hacker News Reader

Comment by albertop | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how much time before whataboutism comments will show up.

I mean you’re getting down voted and yet at the same time there is literally another front page thread on the exact same topic filled with Greenwald fanboys doing exactly this.

About half an hour after your comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27283200

The times were simpler when you could judge people by their actions and not have to ask who did it beforehand.

Such a fantasy time has never existed.

Personally I think whataboutism to excuse bad behavior is awful, but using it to criticize an accuser's hypocrisy or double-standard is fair and legitimate.

For instance, the event with Evo Morales' plane being forced down in Switzerland, while not exactly the same, clearly set a bad precedent and we're paying the price now. I don't have any problem with saying that what Belarus just did and what happened then with Evo Morales' plane were both wrong. (At the same time I support European countries sanctioning Belarus even if they were the same countries that just a few years ago denied their airspace to Morale's plane for political reasons.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

I also really hate to do this, but no western media gave a damn to label this https://www.rt.com/news/363763-ukraine-belavia-antimaidan-pl... as a state sponsored hijacking etc.

Interesting. To be fair, in that case (assuming the article is accurate) the plane departed from Kiev, so it would seem that Ukraine would in that case have a reasonable claim that the plane is in their jurisdiction. I don't know the specifics of aviation treaties, so I can't really say for sure if this was improper.

On the other hand, if Ukraine did this just to harass a journalist saying things they didn't like (once again if we take the RT article at face value), then that's a questionable action that deserves to be criticized.

Declaring "whataboutism" has become more of a fallacy than actual "whataboutism" could ever be.

It reminds me of calling 'slippery slope' on an argument. Slippery slope arguments are sometimes fallacious, and sometimes very pertinent. You actually have to use reason to distinguish the two scenarios, not just use pattern recognition to try to spot a match to a list of fallacies.

Lots of people using 'what about' are doing so to try to make reasonable comparisons between two cases. Lots of people do it to avoid blame or confuse the argument. You have to actually read to figure out which it is.

Not only will you have to read, you'll also have to think critically.

Had to google whataboutism, which sent me into a fallacy wiki-hole. Only then could i come back, understand and laugh at your comment lol.

After some thinking it seems a lack of authority on what 'Truly' constitutes a logical fallacy during a conversation, but claiming the other is using a fallacy is a fallacy in it's own right. May I suggest Fallaception?

I think the problem is people cry whataboutism as a way of silencing dissenting opinions rather than engaging in a discussion rebutting the premise(s).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com