Religion

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)

26. Gladly:

Fri Mar 29, 2019, 04:03 PM

Mar 2019

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jumping on the Whataboutism Bandwagon [View all] MineralMan Mar 2019 OP

Consistent with a pattern. trotsky Mar 2019 #1

Misframing. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #4

... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #7

Thanks for that wonderful explanation. trotsky Mar 2019 #10

And when called on the whataboutism the next tactic is gaslighting Major Nikon Mar 2019 #9

Someone is working overtime to gaslight everyone into believing their fallacy isn't a fallacy Major Nikon Mar 2019 #2

Misframing. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #5

... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #6

I've solved that problem for my part... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #16

I don't really see it as a problem Major Nikon Mar 2019 #17

It's more like an ear-worm to me... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #18

This should do it Major Nikon Mar 2019 #20

Ouch... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #21

It is very basic. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #3

... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #8

lol tymorial Apr 2019 #76

Again? And Again? And Again? MineralMan Mar 2019 #11

Please explain why simplicable.com is a better source on this than Merriam Webster. trotsky Mar 2019 #12

I know! I know! MineralMan Mar 2019 #14

Gladly: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #26

Huh? trotsky Apr 2019 #27

Amazing? Definitely. eom guillaumeb Apr 2019 #29

And nobody said you denied guilt. marylandblue Apr 2019 #30

Your claim about my supposed position lacks something. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #31

I can't show you what isn't there. marylandblue Apr 2019 #32

Sexual abuse is criminal behavior. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #33

Evidence for which assertion? The one you didn't answer before? marylandblue Apr 2019 #34

Again, that depends on a number of factors. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #40

Again, you're not answering the question. trotsky Apr 2019 #41

You have an agenda. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #46

Tu Quoque? MineralMan Apr 2019 #47

Observation. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #49

I see. Again and again, I see... MineralMan Apr 2019 #53

Actually studying the issue is so much harder than making an assertion. Correct? guillaumeb Apr 2019 #55

Still no answer. MineralMan Apr 2019 #57

No, not the answer you prefer. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #58

ONCE AGAIN trotsky Apr 2019 #70

"No puppet. No puppet. You're the puppet." trotsky Apr 2019 #48

Yes, it is. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #50

I'm glad you can admit your response was pathetic. trotsky Apr 2019 #51

Question? guillaumeb Apr 2019 #52

No it wasn't. trotsky Apr 2019 #54

Certainly. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #56

Still no answer. trotsky Apr 2019 #59

I have not seen enough actual information to answer. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #60

Then that would be a "no" answer. trotsky Apr 2019 #61

Did you read my response? guillaumeb Apr 2019 #62

You mean your evasion? Yes, I read it. trotsky Apr 2019 #63

Provide a comparison to justify the assertion. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #64

Just did. trotsky Apr 2019 #65

Make an appointment with an optometrist. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #66

You're the one who said you couldn't see something. trotsky Apr 2019 #67

The optometrist might be able to help you find those assertions that you made about my posts. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #68

Now you're mixing up your threads. trotsky Apr 2019 #69

Actually, it was a question, because your answer is unknown marylandblue Apr 2019 #72

At least you mentioned some specifics marylandblue Apr 2019 #71

As I have pointed out in previous posts, guillaumeb Apr 2019 #73

So your answer is "no?" marylandblue Apr 2019 #74

My answer is still that, lacking specific statistical information, guillaumeb Apr 2019 #75

You said there were many factors. marylandblue Apr 2019 #77

But, the scale and scope of the RCC's scandal is hugely larger. MineralMan Apr 2019 #78

Yes, it seems larger. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #81

Irrelevant MineralMan Apr 2019 #82

The point. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #83

Still irrelevant. MineralMan Apr 2019 #84

A large scandal in a large organization is much worse than in a small organization marylandblue Apr 2019 #85

Yes, it is worse in that way. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #86

No. The human "family" is not a family and is not an organization marylandblue Apr 2019 #87

All human organizations are comprised of? guillaumeb Apr 2019 #88

Can we get off this logical contradiction already. marylandblue Apr 2019 #89

What about when an organization has its own power structure and "legal system"... trotsky Apr 2019 #93

It makes those who shielded the abusers complicit. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #95

But it suggests, perhaps, that an organization should not be allowed to have such a structure. marylandblue Apr 2019 #96

Many have taken steps. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #97

In time? Many places have had these measures for decades. marylandblue Apr 2019 #98

According to some we can't even take the steps that are already working with other organizations Major Nikon Apr 2019 #99

Which makes the scandal worse. trotsky Apr 2019 #100

Yeah, just be sure not to hit your kids in the face while beating them Major Nikon Apr 2019 #94

Global coverups Lordquinton Apr 2019 #91

You are attempting to re-frame and distract. trotsky Apr 2019 #92

You're doing it again. trotsky Apr 2019 #35

But whutabout Chinese atheists? Major Nikon Apr 2019 #36

How long does he get to play this damn game while trying to pretend he's the real victim? trotsky Apr 2019 #37

Until everyone here puts him on ignore Major Nikon Apr 2019 #38

On the other hand, I think he's here less and less often. MineralMan Apr 2019 #39

His XX/XY sexist/transphobic thread was pretty bad. trotsky Apr 2019 #42

Well it certainly demonstrated that he doesn't understand genetics. MineralMan Apr 2019 #43

That's just it, there has been no growth, no learning, nothing. trotsky Apr 2019 #44

Well, there it is, I guess. MineralMan Apr 2019 #45

Kinda shocking you'd get even one Major Nikon Apr 2019 #90

He's good at it, that's for sure. Mariana Apr 2019 #80

Without having seen all the posts in question, I've got a working assumption: Pope George Ringo II Mar 2019 #13

Congratulations, you do not need to read the posts in question. trotsky Mar 2019 #15

My hat's off to those of you who suffer through trying to correct the irredeemable. Pope George Ringo II Mar 2019 #25

Ha, there is no correction possible. He's made that quite clear. trotsky Apr 2019 #28

It's so bad, WEC is... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #19

Some people build castles in the sky. Pope George Ringo II Mar 2019 #23

Eventually, it must come to this: MineralMan Mar 2019 #22

Let's look at the good news, though Pope George Ringo II Mar 2019 #24

I always thought Whataboutism was a pivot in a conversation so you don't answer the question mitch96 Apr 2019 #79

A beam, a mote, an eye and the confused I sanatanadharma Apr 2019 #101

I get it, but this mostly does not compute in Western philosophy. marylandblue Apr 2019 #102

Kick... NeoGreen Jun 2019 #103

:shrug: As Expected. MineralMan Jun 2019 #104

Well, when a current thread is the subject of numerous examples, guillaumeb Jun 2019 #105

Whatabout the whataboutist poster? Major Nikon Jun 2019 #106