Hermit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:03 am
Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:37 pm
Hermit wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:41 am
Mister Whatabout strikes again.
Oh, fuck off - when the discussion is about whether this is peculiar to the Republican party, then pointing out other examples -- from the Communist Party, Socialist Party, Libertarian Party or Democratic Party is fair.
AKA whataboutism.
Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:37 pm
Whattaboutism is when one suggests that an argument is valid or conduct is good because someone else does the same or similar thing.
It really isn't.
It really is.
Hermit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:03 am
Whataboutism: The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.
That can be very relevant to a discussion. I.e., if someone says that they themselves are very concerned about honesty in politics, or that they loathe some other person they are talking to because of the dishonesty of a politician that other person supports, it is relevant to the discussion to say "hey, what about the dishonest politician you support?" The reason it is relevant is that the discussion is, in part, about the first person's concern about honesty in politics. If that person also supports dishonest politicians, then it goes to the issue of whether that person actually is concerned about honesty, or is only concerned about SOME honesty.
Hermit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:03 am
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.
That's a longer way of saying what I said.
But, that doesn't invalidate all references to other examples and events. Using examples are ways of illustrating arguments. Most of the time I'm being accused of whataboutism, I was actually illustrating a point by means of examples.
Some douchebags fling the term "whataboutism" around so they can wrestle the discussion into a corner, so that only CERTAIN evil-doers are evaluated and criticized. Many of those same douchebags also will go right to "what about so-and-so..." when one of their fan-favorites is evaluated or attacked.
Hermit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:03 am
Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
Which can be very relevant to discussions of good/bad and what people support and which politicians they support. If someone says they hate Gov. Northam because he's a racist, but then they were a big fan of Robert Byrd, it's relevant to bring that up. You are up in arms about a guy in black face 40 years ago, but you had no problem with Robert Byrd? How do you reconcile that? That's a fair question.
Hermit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:03 am
Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:37 pm
Hermit wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:41 am
Republicans are a great deal more likely to deny science than Democrats. It would be interesting, for example, to compare the percentage of global warming denialists among Republicans with the percentage of global warming denialists among Democrats, then do the same with people in each group who deny evolution.
Nonsense. That's just not true.
You just limit your "science" to global warming and evolution. I am positive more Republicans deny global warming and evolution than Democrats. Democrats are idiots when it comes to other issues. They are idiots when it comes to global warming and evolution, too, by and large -- they just happen to have picked the right team on those occasions. Being "pro" evolution or global warming is not an indication that one knows anything about it. It's a broken clock being correct twice a day.
Let's recap the argument, shall we? You quite correctly pointed out that Democrats deny science too. I replied, saying that nobody claimed the opposite, but that on a percentage basis they are significantly less likely to deny science than Republicans. I gave you concrete data drawn from surveys concerning - evolution, global warming and vaccination - and in each case they prove that Republicans are significantly more likely to deny science than democrats.
No -- you showed data that they were more likely to deny evolution and global warming. Other areas Democrats are more likely, like GMO and glyphosate, fracking, nuclear power, and the like. The fact that Republicans are more likely to deny evolution and global warming does not extrapolate to "science in general." Democrats are far more likely to embrace bullshit like homeopathy, spirit crystals, astrology, etc.
Hermit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:03 am
You countered with empty rhetoric. Democrats "are idiots when it comes to global warming and evolution, too, by and large -- they just happen to have picked the right team on those occasions." Can you imagine your fictitious role model, Horace Rumpole, coming out with such shit? John Mortimer would have him laugh you out of court.
Not at all. Being right about an answer doesn't mean one knows the science behind the answer. Many people think it'd be silly to think the Earth was flat. However, they have no idea how to prove the Earth is round, other than by believing what they've been told.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
