Jumping on the Whataboutism Bandwagon

[MineralMan]

So, what about all these threads on whataboutism? What's that about?

And what about all the whataboutism in China? I mean really? Excuses and diversionary tactics, redux.

[trotsky]

1. Consistent with a pattern.

Some people don't like to see religion critically discussed in the ONE place on DU it is allowed.

That's really what it boils down to.

[guillaumeb]

4. Misframing.

[Major Nikon]

7. ...

[trotsky]

10. Thanks for that wonderful explanation.

No wonder you struggle so mightily to be taken seriously.

[Major Nikon]

9. And when called on the whataboutism the next tactic is gaslighting

As we must believe the admission of repetition isn't really repetition and explicitly stated intent really isn't intent.

[Major Nikon]

2. Someone is working overtime to gaslight everyone into believing their fallacy isn't a fallacy

That person has already said the reason they are shitposting the Religion group with threads about China is because it's a response to all the threads about the RCC's culture of child rape which makes them feel bad.

At some point the repetition becomes the intellectual equivalent of a small child beating on a drum.

[guillaumeb]

5. Misframing.

[Major Nikon]

6. ...

[NeoGreen]

16. I've solved that problem for my part...

...the DU 'Ignore' feature is a wonderful thing, and presumably built for just this sort of problem, Gas-lighting and engaging in deliberately perfidious discussion.

[Major Nikon]

17. I don't really see it as a problem

It's more like entertainment.

[NeoGreen]

18. It's more like an ear-worm to me...

...the same off-key tune, over and over again.

Sometimes, you gotta play some Carl Orff Carmina Burana really, really loud to get rid of it.

[Major Nikon]

20. This should do it

[NeoGreen]

21. Ouch...

...I like my selection better, that just reminds me of what I'm trying to get rid of.

[guillaumeb]

3. It is very basic.

Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy

Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.

https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism

And that is why many of these claims of whataboutism are invorrect.

[Major Nikon]

8. ...

[tymorial]

76. lol

Works often.

[MineralMan]

11. Again? And Again? And Again?

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2019, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

[trotsky]

12. Please explain why simplicable.com is a better source on this than Merriam Webster.

Go ahead.

[MineralMan]

14. I know! I know!

'Cause it said what he wanted to say, sort of, but didn't really. But it sounded right, see...

[guillaumeb]

26. Gladly:

What About 'Whataboutism'?
If everyone is guilty of something, is no one guilty of anything?

The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you.

Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

No one here is arguing that there is no guilt. But if, while admitting that the accusation is correct, one states that the behavior is not limited to the accused organization, and that the behavior is seen in other organizations, one is making a comment about the universality of the behavior, and the cover up.

Your own link defeated you.

[trotsky]

27. Huh?

Are we reading the same text?

It actually refutes you.

I am amazed at your ability to ignore reality.

[guillaumeb]

29. Amazing? Definitely. eom

[marylandblue]

30. And nobody said you denied guilt.

That's just a straw dog. You used whataboutism to deny the more specific claim: that the RCC scandal is worse than other, similar scandals.

[guillaumeb]

31. Your claim about my supposed position lacks something.

Specifically, citations from my own actual posts.

[marylandblue]

32. I can't show you what isn't there.

You never addressed the claim that the RCC scandal is worse than others, except by pointing to other scandals and claiming that the same thing happens "everywhere" else. If you were willing to discuss specific facts instead of just posting links and ignoring all distinctions, I might be able to find something, even though I am terrible at searching DU.

If you would like to explicitly claim that the RCC scandal is, or is it not worse than other similar scandal, now is your chance.

Please don't post links to other scandals, other people's make mentions Chinese re-education camps (unless they have been sexually abusing children there for the last 100 years), turn the question back on me (my opinion is clear), or make reference to any supposed human "universals."

It either is worse or it isn't.

[guillaumeb]

33. Sexual abuse is criminal behavior.

All sexual abuse is criminal behavior.

So how does one, or can one, rank which types of sexual abuse are worse?

But you did admit that there is no evidence for the assertion.

[marylandblue]

34. Evidence for which assertion? The one you didn't answer before?

and didn't answer here? Yes you don't answer the question. In this case, you just answered with another question. I incorporate by reference every post you have ever made on this subject and none of them answer. Sorry I can't link them all.

The question is about the size and scope of this particular scandal as awhole, not any individual act of abuse. With that clarification, do you think it is worse than other institutional sexual abuse scandals or not. Yes or no? Use any specific criteria you think relevant, except "human behavior" in general which is meaningless, since some institutions have sexual abuse scandals and some don't.

[guillaumeb]

40. Again, that depends on a number of factors.

The RCC is a very large organization.

So the question becomes, does abuse of children occur at a higher rate in the RCC than it does in society at large?

[trotsky]

41. Again, you're not answering the question.

This isn't about the abuse, it's about the entire scandal, which includes the institutional cover-up. Why do you keep trying to change the topic? Oh wait, I know. Because you know goddamn well that the scandal IS worse in the RCC, and that's why you refuse to discuss it. It's all about focusing on "abuse" and pointing out that "everyone does it" and it's just a problem with "society" and the church is no different.

Everyone can see your agenda, g. Plainly and clearly.

[guillaumeb]

46. You have an agenda.

An obvious agenda.

[MineralMan]

47. Tu Quoque?

Could you at least try to answer the question?

[guillaumeb]

49. Observation.

But the question is a leading question.

If anyone wishes to compare rates at which children are abused, and do so by comparing where the abuse takes place, that would be different.

But the original question was an opinion framed as a question.

[MineralMan]

53. I see. Again and again, I see...

So, why don't you go and make that comparison, using valid data. When you do, bring it back here, OK?

Feh!

[guillaumeb]

55. Actually studying the issue is so much harder than making an assertion. Correct?

And it is far easier to simply assert that this organization is the worst. Saves much time and energy.

But many might question the thinking, the agenda, behind the unsubstantiated assertion.

Others, who share the agenda, will accept the unsubstantiated assertion as proof because it validates their own agenda.

[MineralMan]

57. Still no answer.

Never mind, Monsieur B. Just never mind...

This is the Religion Group. We talk about things in relation to religion here. Whataboutism that gets off that track is off-topic, frankly.

So, just never mind.

[guillaumeb]

58. No, not the answer you prefer.

And given that your posts make your own position quite clear, I understand.

[trotsky]

70. ONCE AGAIN

This isn't about the rates of abuse. I understand why you desperately want that to be the issue.

It's about the overall scandal. The extent of the abuse, coverup, and protection of the abusers.

You've never once acknowledged the difference. Perhaps you can't "see" it.

[trotsky]

48. "No puppet. No puppet. You're the puppet."

Pathetic, g.

[guillaumeb]

50. Yes, it is.

And it is one reason that very little real discussion takes place in this group.

The agenda overpowers all else.

[trotsky]

51. I'm glad you can admit your response was pathetic.

Try answering the question instead of attacking me. Surprise me by acting like a decent human being.

[guillaumeb]

52. Question?

It was an assertion in question form.

[trotsky]

54. No it wasn't.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=311239

The question is about the size and scope of this particular scandal as awhole, not any individual act of abuse. With that clarification, do you think it is worse than other institutional sexual abuse scandals or not. Yes or no? Use any specific criteria you think relevant, except "human behavior" in general which is meaningless, since some institutions have sexual abuse scandals and some don't.

Answer the question.

[guillaumeb]

56. Certainly.

Actually studying the issue is so much harder than making an assertion. Correct?

And it is far easier to simply assert that this organization is the worst. Saves much time and energy.

But many might question the thinking, the agenda, behind the unsubstantiated assertion.

Others, who share the agenda, will accept the unsubstantiated assertion as proof because it validates their own agenda.

And yes, it is an assertion framed as a qurestion.

[trotsky]

59. Still no answer.

do you think it is worse than other institutional sexual abuse scandals or not. Yes or no?

YES or NO, g.

You weren't asked if this was "the worst" (YOUR false claim). Just answer, or further cement why no one would ever take you seriously.

I bet I know which option you'll pick though. All to defend religious privilege.

[guillaumeb]

60. I have not seen enough actual information to answer.

Actual statistical studies.

The things that scientists use to arrive at logical conclusions.

The things that are missing from this assertion.

And it might help if you know that "worse than other...etc" is essentially synonymous with "worst" in that it is implied by the original, unsubstantiated assertion.

[trotsky]

61. Then that would be a "no" answer.

You haven't seen enough to indicate that the RCC sex abuse scandal is any worse than any other abuse scandal.

Is that a correct or incorrect statement?

Try answering a question for once to prove you are actually interested in discussion and not just obfuscation and insults.

[guillaumeb]

62. Did you read my response?

Provide statistical information to support the unsubstantiated assertion.

Otherwise, you are asking for validation of an unsubstantiated assertion that you perhaps share.

[trotsky]

63. You mean your evasion? Yes, I read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States#Scope_and_nature_of_the_problem

And here's info about the scandal in the Boy Scouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases

A cursory read of them both exposes the RCC scandal as orders of magnitude larger. Plus there's the continued cover up and protection of abusers and their enablers in the RCC, and everything else that has been pointed out to you hundreds of times.

But somehow, you still haven't seen enough data to suggest the RCC's abuse scandal is any worse than any other institution's. Despicable. Go ahead and keep your blinders on - that way, you can defend religious privilege and never let any facts challenge you.

[guillaumeb]

64. Provide a comparison to justify the assertion.

Provide statistical information to support the unsubstantiated assertion.

Otherwise, you are asking for validation of an unsubstantiated assertion that you perhaps share.

[trotsky]

65. Just did.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[guillaumeb]

66. Make an appointment with an optometrist.

But a nice try.

[trotsky]

67. You're the one who said you couldn't see something.

Why would I be the one who needs to see an optometrist? What a strange thing to say.

But maybe you're right, g. A global organization with thousands of documented abusers, and unknown tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of victims, that has a DOCUMENTED and PROVEN history of protecting and enabling abusers, silencing victims, and shielding those responsible for the coverup is really no worse than any other sex abuse scandal. Sure, that's the ticket.

You go on believing what you need to, g. Anything to protect religious privilege. Victims aren't fooled, though. Neither are unbiased people. Your ("former&quot church has a serious problem. That you continue to cover for it is despicable.

[guillaumeb]

68. The optometrist might be able to help you find those assertions that you made about my posts.

Happy searching.

[trotsky]

69. Now you're mixing up your threads.

It's happened before.

Let me know if you want to answer the question that was posed to you.

[marylandblue]

72. Actually, it was a question, because your answer is unknown

It's a yes or no question. You can say no. But it would be good if you answered instead of questioning the question.

I realize it depends on many factors and we may lack certain statistics, nonetheless it can be answered qualitatively. But what's the point of doing that if you just find different ways not to give an answer.

[marylandblue]

71. At least you mentioned some specifics

Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2019, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Why is it so hard to get even that far? Yes the RCC is very large. It's one of the largest and most influential institutions in the world. The RCC operates in almost every country in the world and in thousands of towns across America. That automatically magnifies everything. Comes with the territory of being big and important.

As.for statistics on frequency, there probably isn't anything reliable, but that's not the only issue.

It's not just the absolute frequency, but the pervasiveness. It's clear that a lot of people knew what was going. There were networks of priests who signalled their victims to each other. The church ran it's own treatment centers that themselves became network centers for further crimes. And bishops knew this was occurring. I am not aware of any other similar scandal that had this level of coordination among abusers and their protectors. Are you?

[guillaumeb]

73. As I have pointed out in previous posts,

the institutional behavior exhibited by the RCC is remarkably similar that that exhibited by school districts, the Boy Scouts, Universities, and the armed forces.

There is an institutional tendency to cover up criminal behavior by members.

[marylandblue]

74. So your answer is "no?"

[guillaumeb]

75. My answer is still that, lacking specific statistical information,

I cannot answer.

[marylandblue]

77. You said there were many factors.

Many of them are not amenable to statistical analysis but require making qualitative judgements about the actions of individuals and their institutions. Are you unwilling to make such judgements?

Are you unwilling to say that voter suppression may have been worse in Georgia than Florida or Texas or Michigan even though we have no way of knowing how many votes were actually suppressed? Are you unwilling to say that Trump is a worse President than Bush I even though we can't compare them statistically?

When considering which Democrat to vote for in the primary, do you count up how many mistakes they made per year and choose the one with the fewest?

[MineralMan]

78. But, the scale and scope of the RCC's scandal is hugely larger.

For that reason, alone, it is worse. In Pennsylvania alone, hundreds of priests and thousands of victims have been identified. Very few days go by without a news story about some priest being charged with child sexual abuse. Far fewer news stories about, say, scout leaders show up in Google searches, although there are some of those, too.

I don't remember any stories about hundreds of scout leaders in a single state being named as child sexual abusers.

Scope. It matters. How many RCC priests are there? Between 35,000 and 40,000, according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church#North_America

How many sexual abuse cases for the boy scouts? About 1200 in the US between 1965 and 1985, according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America#Sex_abuse_cases

How many for the RCC? Well, there were that many, at least, just in Pennsylvania.

[guillaumeb]

81. Yes, it seems larger.

As is the RCC itself.

[MineralMan]

82. Irrelevant

[guillaumeb]

83. The point.

One might expect that, the larger the group of people, the proportionately larger the number of people who behave badly.

[MineralMan]

84. Still irrelevant.

[marylandblue]

85. A large scandal in a large organization is much worse than in a small organization

It touches many more lives, gets more headlines, creates a larger problem, on and on down the list.

Trump's corruption may be no worse than any other New York real estate developer or mobster. But once he become the head of the US Government, it suddenly became a problem for the entire world.

Would you seriously argue that you spent as much time in your life worrying about John Gotti as you do now about Trump?

[guillaumeb]

86. Yes, it is worse in that way.

But the largest "organization" is the human family. And that is where most abuse starts.

[marylandblue]

87. No. The human "family" is not a family and is not an organization

Once again, you zoom out on the details. And you were doing so well on details for a few seconds. This is just the beginning of a detailed analysis.

Large and powerful means you matter more. What the United States does matters more than what Lichtenstein does. Both are countries, but they are not the same. We can't go onto the next step until you recognize that a large organization is held to a different standard simply because it is large.

This is manifestly true and it is apparent everywhere. It's something you need to admit.

[guillaumeb]

88. All human organizations are comprised of?

And no organization of which I am aware sees child abuse as normal. It is aberrant behavior.

Large and powerful has more global impact, but predation is predation no matter where the predator exists.

[marylandblue]

89. Can we get off this logical contradiction already.

All humans are compromised of atoms. So what? What can we deduce about human behavior about this fact?

Predation is predation no matter where it exist. Therefore praying mantises are tigers?

And after claiming that abuse is universal, all 7.5 billion people in earth form a family and an organization, you turn that around and say " No organization I am aware of sees child abuse as normal." What about actual abusive families? That's literally what they teach their children, and the children believe it. Are families now not relevant after you said so many times "What about families?"

And if all things are all other things and all are all alike and we are all one big organization, amd no organization approves of sexual abuse, consider the ritual sex abuse practices of the Sambia People of New Guinea.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambia_people

What about the Sambia people?

How about the Becheve Tribe of Africa? Humans will be humans. Institutions will be institutions, right? So why are we not selling our 10-year old daughters into sex slavery? I really can't tell if this is worse than my local school district because I don't have any statistics on how many children get abused this way in Africa. Or here.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/child-brides-in-africa-are-advertised-on-facebook-and-sold-to-old-men?ref=home

[trotsky]

93. What about when an organization has its own power structure and "legal system"...

and shields the predators from secular authorities?

Does that make an abuse scandal worse, or is it the same as when no such power structure exists?

Hahah, silly me, you won't answer that.

[guillaumeb]

95. It makes those who shielded the abusers complicit.

As I have previously stated.

[marylandblue]

96. But it suggests, perhaps, that an organization should not be allowed to have such a structure.

And many organizations don't. Many such organizations have taken steps to ensure the number of abusers that work for them is much less than the average for the general population, respond rapidly and appropriately when an abuser is found, and informed the public of actions taken to instill confidence in the institution. Boy Scouts of America, for example.

Why can't the holy church be at least as proactive as a bunch of campers?

[guillaumeb]

97. Many have taken steps.

And in time, we might be able to see what effect those steps have had.

[marylandblue]

98. In time? Many places have had these measures for decades.

Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2019, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)

How long do we have to wait to figure this out?

[Major Nikon]

99. According to some we can't even take the steps that are already working with other organizations

So instead of listening to child welfare organizations we must consult with the RCC and their child rape apologists on what is to be done about their epidemic of child rape.

[trotsky]

100. Which makes the scandal worse.

Makes it bigger, increases the number of victims, and denies justice.

Worse. Why can't you admit this?

[Major Nikon]

94. Yeah, just be sure not to hit your kids in the face while beating them

Because that would be bad.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/06/europe/vatican-pope-spanking-children/index.html

[Lordquinton]

91. Global coverups

of child sexual abuse start in the family. Got it.

[trotsky]

92. You are attempting to re-frame and distract.

I noticed you haven't responded on this thread yet. Don't worry, I know exactly why.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218311505

[trotsky]

35. You're doing it again.

marylandblue didn't ask you for an opinion on "types of sexual abuse" - which is the question you decided to answer.

You were asked if "the RCC scandal is, or is .. not worse than other similar scandal(s)".

The *scandal*, not the abuse.

Recall that the the scandal includes the abuse AND its cover-up and subsequent behavior.

Answer the question, g.

I bet you won't, though. Because you are not interested in actual discussion - you just want to control what is discussed.

[Major Nikon]

36. But whutabout Chinese atheists?

Diverters gonna divert. As usual, religion gets all the credit for anything good any religionist does, but never gets the blame for any bad any religionist does, even when the religious organization enables and precipitates the evil.

Definition provided for thems who prefer to misframe rather than discuss...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologia

[trotsky]

37. How long does he get to play this damn game while trying to pretend he's the real victim?

Getting real sick of this. Even the enjoyment of seeing every thread of his end in failure is fading.

[Major Nikon]

38. Until everyone here puts him on ignore

All we are really doing is feeding a troll and while that is amusing for a while, eventually the luster starts to dull.

[MineralMan]

39. On the other hand, I think he's here less and less often.

And when here, he doesn't stay long. Some days, he doesn't post at all. Personally, I'm for countering the posts as rationally as possible and leaving it at that, pretty much.

[trotsky]

42. His XX/XY sexist/transphobic thread was pretty bad.

LOTS of people took him to the woodshed on that one. Seems like a lot of his threads end in trainwrecks, but the really major wrecks cause him to run away and lick his wounds for a bit.

[MineralMan]

43. Well it certainly demonstrated that he doesn't understand genetics.

Sometimes I'm sympathetic to that DUer. Sometimes I try to point out errors in his thinking, in hopes that he'll understand.

Sometimes.

It hasn't worked very well, I'm afraid.

[trotsky]

44. That's just it, there has been no growth, no learning, nothing.

He still insists he gets to define atheism for atheists.

He still insists on reframing the Catholic abuse scandal as ONLY being about the abuse and not the coverup.

He still insists that religion can only motivate people to do good things. When they do bad things, they're just being human.

I've only ever gotten one apology from him when he blatantly misstated what I had claimed. It took at least a dozen attempts, linking him directly to the posts proving he was wrong, before he finally relented.

[MineralMan]

45. Well, there it is, I guess.

Il a des idées fixes. (He has fixed ideas.)

There are a couple of people on DU who are fixed on the horrors of circumcision. From time to time, they introduce a thread about that topic in another forum. There used to be a couple of people like that on the old CompuServe Religion and Politics forums, too. I don't know - maybe they're the same people. The point is that there was no point in discussing the issue with them. It was impossible to make any headway in getting them to discuss it in any sort of rational way.

Religion is even more of an idée fixe, and has even more people who will argue endlessly with no possibility of change. Fortunately, there are other people around who like to discuss religion from a more flexible perspective. There will always be those in any such discussion, though, who will persist and argue with broken logic and fixed ideas. There's no way around that, I'm afraid.

It's tempting, sometimes, to use ridicule and other tactics with people like that. I know that I fall victim to that temptation at at times. It's hard to resist. But, it will not change anything, and especially will not unfix someone ideas if they are rigid in their thinking.

So, there it is, I guess.

[Major Nikon]

90. Kinda shocking you'd get even one

The usual response he gives when caught fucking up is gaslighting ad nauseum.

[Mariana]

80. He's good at it, that's for sure.

He's very good at staying on the right side of the rules. Given that, he probably gets to play this damn game, while trying to pretend he's the real victim, as long as he wants to.

[Pope George Ringo II]

13. Without having seen all the posts in question, I've got a working assumption:

The group laughingstock has been having the kind of week that would make Wile E. Coyote say, "At least I'm not that guy."

[trotsky]

15. Congratulations, you do not need to read the posts in question.

Lucky you!

[Pope George Ringo II]

25. My hat's off to those of you who suffer through trying to correct the irredeemable.

But he's just so...failed. On so many levels it's downright painful.

[trotsky]

28. Ha, there is no correction possible. He's made that quite clear.

I prefer to keep letting him be an example of his faith. It really illustrates how dishonesty, hatred, and hypocrisy are such key features of religion.

[NeoGreen]

19. It's so bad, WEC is...

...giving a very wide berth and not standing anywhere within close proximity.

[Pope George Ringo II]

23. Some people build castles in the sky.

He builds trainloads of flaming dumpsters in the sky. Then crashes them into each other. I wouldn't actually blame WEC for staying clear.

[MineralMan]

22. Eventually, it must come to this:

[Pope George Ringo II]

24. Let's look at the good news, though

Acmedefinitions.com and Acmereligiousnews.com are doing a thriving business.

[mitch96]

79. I always thought Whataboutism was a pivot in a conversation so you don't answer the question

Kellyann Conjob is a master at this.
Statement x.. replies with a close quote to statement x and then "what about" Y??? never answering statement x...
m

[sanatanadharma]

101. A beam, a mote, an eye and the confused I

Generally speaking, I (many years mostly lurking here), ask what about the problem of egotism?

For what do I act, speak (also action) and defend?
Do I for ego or other me, go into words, action and self-justification?
Who gains from a sub-chain of 'you-no you' whataboutism wanderings of names?

Who is asking the question? Who is the I behind the eyes; consciousness and observant of this changing lifetime?
What is the conscious-knower, the constant "I "watching the comings and goings of the inconstant me (*) and mine(*)?

Fill in the * blanks with your own experience of one's self seeing the changing being (kid-adult), and the over-time changing knowledge-interest-desires of the doer we all call I; who similarly asks what about the silly and sad stuff stored as mine until it is tossed as no-longer me?

As a result of my religion, I have no need to convince, nor answer, nor even return to logged-in status. No one need respond to this ego.
Discuss, disgust, disabuse, as you desire. Wring out my wrong, my rant has run out.

[marylandblue]

102. I get it, but this mostly does not compute in Western philosophy.

[NeoGreen]

103. Kick...

...it's happening again.

[MineralMan]

104. :shrug: As Expected.

[guillaumeb]

105. Well, when a current thread is the subject of numerous examples,

and the motivation is to trash a thread that some few see as contrary to what these same few see as the proper purpose of the Group, whataboutism is to be expected.

Ironic that the first responder to that thread engaged in whataboutism.

[Major Nikon]

106. Whatabout the whataboutist poster?

Whose whataboutism is the town freak show, yet still can’t get any traction pointing his whatabout finger at everyone else.