How is whataboutism not a legitimate argument?I guess in a hypothetical situation where someone is criticizing X in a vacuum it would be a fallacy, but almost always in reality the person criticizing X is at least tacitly supporting Y, so pointing out that Y has the same or worse flaws than X seems perfectly valid
because what we call whataboutism is usually:>you're committing a great crime against humanity>shut up, don't you remember this petty shit you did decades ago? why should i act different?
>>6460088Because Americans hate being called out on their hypocrisy so they invented an excuse to end the argument in case you bring it upHere's a perfect example: >>6460103
>>6460088Another person being wrong doesn't make you any less wrong yourself. It means that you both ought to accept wrong for wrong
>>6460155fuck off and starve vatnik
It’s kind of an admission of guilt. Rather than claim you didn’t do something, you simply try to justify it or change the subject.
>>6460172>t. khazar rapebaby
>>6460088>How is whataboutism not a legitimate argument?It's an ad hominem fallacy used to deflect guilt away from someone being criticized. It's not remotely a legitimate form of argument.
>>6460215In a few more words, it changes the scope of the argument, making it unmanageable. Before whataboutism is deployed, the discussion is about a given, discrete subject, probably whether that thing is right or wrong. Whataboutism completely moves away from the matter at hand and is thus a deflection. The points raised by whataboutism might be valid, but it is still a fallacy in the context of arguing a certain thing.
>>6460088So called "whataboutism" is a legitime counterargument, accusing someone of whataboutism is ad hominem and its literally being mad at someone using your own argument against you.
>>6460088Whataboutism is just another in the endless litany of empty buzzwords Jewishly employed by leftists to avoid engaging in good faith with any points their opponents bring up. For leftists, any political discussion that doesn't consist of block quoting the 100 year old commies they "my ancestor :)" associate themselves with is a priori illegitimate and to be shut down with any and all means except actual genuine engagement
>>6460532>a legitime counterargumentIt's arguing besides the point, even though it might be true, it doesn't refute the original argument in question, it just introduces a new one.
>>6460536Ironic, given that "You hang negroes" was used by Soviets to deflect blame for their own human rights abuses.
Depends on the context and comparison. For example if someone taking American side criticizes Russian actions in Ukraine, "whataboutism" is a meme buzzword, and we are talking about hypocrisy. But if someone objectively points out that Russians are not acting in good faith, you can't just deflect the argument by saying "Americans do the same".
>>6460532>killing people is wrong>but you steal thingswhat a counter-argument!
>>6460173>>6460215But if somebody points to communist attrocities to show that capitalism is superior, how is it not a legitimate counterargument to show that capitalism has no moral high ground due to its own attrocities?
Itt retarded burger arguing with imaginary commies
>>6460634That isn't "but what about", the question is posed comparatively from the very beginning. It doesn't deflect anything
>>6460687Criticizing a particular system for its attrocities seems to imply a comparison though, and that the other system (in this case capitalism) is better.
>NOOOOOOO ONLY COMMIES DID ATTROCITIES >STOP POINTING OUT CAPITALIST ATTROCITIES>THATS WHATABOUTISM
>>6460695>Criticizing a particular system for its attrocities seems to imply a comparison thoughI wouldn't say that. I'm perfectly happy to shit on everyone.
>>6460088>but almost always in reality the person criticizing X is at least tacitly supporting YThis is only the case in your head