Please keep all replies on topic. People should be able to have a discussion about the term without devolving into personal attacks.
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
-17 points (20.7% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35863 readers
1739 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Whataboutism gang unite
🥸
Pedantery ahoy, but I'll take your question at face value.
There is no such term, as nobody is a whataboutist. Whataboutism is a rhethoric tool.
While some rhethoric tools are always used intentionally, like jaq-ing and concern trolling. some are frequently (far from always!) used unconsciously because they just feel right:
Attack on character, sealioning, whataboutism, appeal to authority, argument to moderation, fallacy of the beard, false dilemma, false equivalence, kettle logic, et cetera.
In my experience, the answer to your question is "usually not".
There is no such term
Whataboutist: troll who uses whataboutism.
Now there is such a term:-)
Whataboutery is a much better term than whataboutism. And doesn't lend itself to mischaracterisation as a personality trait rather than a fallacious style of argument.
Whataboutery is a much better term
Never heard it, though...
mischaracterisation as a personality trait rather than a fallacious style of argument.
Probably both. At least the people I've seen using it have done it regularly.
Some do; others think it’s a valid argument because they see their media sources (or at least people around them) do it.
I doubt it, particularly because it's almost certainly the case that the people who deride it when others do it do it themselves in other situations.
It's far and away most common in partisan politics, and it happens because the simple fact of the matter is that most professional politicians and political parties are loathsome slimeballs, and the only thing a partisan can dependably say in support of their preferences is that they're (purportedly) better than the alternative. So it's nearly always the case that in attempting to defend or advocate for their preference, they'll bring up the alternative and shift focus to them.
And then they'll potentially turn right around and deride their opponents for doing the same.
I think that some do, some don't.
Some people who use the fallacy (it's a type of red herring) show signs of knowing that it's logically invalid, and that they're still doing it because they value persuasion over moral/intellectual standards. But in some cases it smells a lot like plain lack of rational thinking.
What about a whataboitist that’s in fact a she? Or, like “they”
Yeah I thought so.
(/s)