Change My Mind

Neither do the democratic leaders in the senate. 36qhxu.jpg (click to show)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Yup, that’s exactly what you did.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism

Nope, I started by agreeing with you, and didn't imply that it is OK because all are guilty. The subject of Trump's power abuse was still the topic I was talking about as well and no implication of hypocrisy was given. So basically your wrong on every point that would make my comment a whataboutism.

But nice to see you dodge that Trump's abuse could go unchecked because the democratic leaders in the senate do not really care about abuse.

Hahahahahahaha!

Whataboutisms are not necessarily an agreement, but a deflation of the overall relevance of the original point by pointing out hypocrisy. They neither refute nor agree to the original statement but attempt to sidestep the responsibility of it.

Take what’s happening to the border:
_______________________
Trump is detaining children.

Common Whataboutism: Obama did it, too.
_______________________

The problem with the above argument is it attempts to deflate the original point by normalizing the situation because not only did Trump’s predecessor do it, but so too did the opposing party. Implying hypocrisy.

It no longer matters children are in cages and why they’re there. It supposedly absolves Trump, right? Wrong.

On the meme:

PRESIDENTS ASKING FOR FOREIGN LEADERS TO DO THINGS EVERYWHERE.

IT IS WHY WE HAVE PRESIDENTS.

You wrote: It's called diplomacy.

Nothing wrong with that statement. A simplification of another simplification.

I replied: Diplomacy would also mean being able to compromise with domestic political representatives, not seeking out foreign power to keep your job so that you can postpone your criminal hearings for four more years.

And you accused me of whataboutism.

Problem. The subject was the president asking foreign leaders to do things.

I added the detail that the oversimplified the argument seemed to leave out. That’s not whataboutism or rather tu quoque logical fallacy. But rather an attempt to reverse the original memes, and your comments, irrelevant conclusion. You could easily mistake my comment for tu quoque logical fallacy but you would be wrong because my point does not rely on hypocrisy.

So basically you didn't even know conversation you're replying to.

No, giving you time to own up to your error.

No, you ignored most of my post here and ignored the definitions of whataboutism that both of us posted. Then you started talking about a different conversation where I pointed out a complaint that was so genericfied to make it useless.

In that other conversation you changed the subject to such a way to imply that my stance was hypocritical in stating the subject is so generic to cover diplomacy and thus useless by pretending that I was talkinf about a far more specific comment.

Even in your own summery to show the subject change by adding stuff that was not ever included to reverse what I said to a hypocritical conclusion that corruption is the same as diplomacy.

And you failed. Your post poorly attempted to use hypocrisy as a defense to Trump’s abuse of power.

Except for the part where I never even tried to defend Trump. But thanks for admitting to that last part of the whataboutism that you previously claim you didn't do.

I honestly can't think of anything Trump could possibly do to make me support a democrat over him, the democrats went so insane i would accept Stalin over one of them, every time Trump does something crazy the Democrats go out of their way to top it.

I would not call supporting Stalin over Democrats rational thinking. Thank you for your affirmation that to his supporters he can do no wrong.

Oh he did plenty of wrong, it's just that his opposition has been so much worse he looks like a saint in comparison.

No, he doesn't.

He does from where i'm standing, since i care about such little things like, oh IDK, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and presumption of innocence, you know the whole human rights stuff, and i also don't like the idea of someone pushing socialism trough on the back door. Seriously those people are not even subtle about it.

Yes, I too have a problem with some of the Democrats pushing Socialism. That doesn't mean there isn't a single one of them can't be a better President. It's also important to distinguish Social Programs from an Social Economy. As far as I can tell... apart from maybe Yang, no one is pushing for a Social Economy. Feel free to tell me otherwise. But lets keep it to the Presidential Candidates, shall we?

Socializing Healthcare and Education is not a bad idea. It is the execution that I worry about and of course the inevitable fallout that will have to happen while we rearrange our priorities on what is and isn't financially important.

Freedom of speech is definitely an issue under attack by the Left. Labeling anything Hate Speech and using it as a tool to discriminate against ideas is.. wrong. Hate Speech should only be punishable by those who have been in direct action of violence toward another person.

Presumption of Innocence is indeed important! Just as the Left go nuts on any Conservative (because they are certainly not moderate like they're suppose to be) Judge... perhaps the Right should not have so vehemently pursued Hillary Clinton. Did I like her? No. But between Trump and Hillary, he was the liberal and she was the Conservative... yet so-called Conservatives flocked to his side under his very liberal polices on Immigration and basically dictatorish proposals.

There are powers within the Judicial and Congressional branch that outright prevent our country from becoming completely socialist. However, the Tea Party Republicans have a very mob-mentality that Trump took full advantage of. They're very much prepared to let go of our First Amendment, Second Amendment, and possibly others just to keep their power. We're more likely to come under a dictatorship under the current Republican party than the Democratic Party which, thankfully, lost a great deal of it's momentum after 2012.

But one crazy party does not cancel out the other. If anything, it causes the other to become... well... more crazy.

I've often argued that the parties should return to their common ground politics of old, as the more cynical voters use to say... "There is only one party, they only pretend to hate each other and pit us against each other but they're definitely friends behind closed doors"

I'm not so sure of that anymore. Maybe in the first 8 years of the 21st century that was true. Now? I am skeptical of that notion.

I think you still underestimate the danger, no piece of paper will protect you from socialist takeover, it is more dangerous then you think, the moment you give it an inch you already lost, you set the precedent and you will pay in blood for it. If you take a look at history this is always what happens, when Rashida Tleib was speaking about arresting conservative politicians last week all i could think about was Jacobin coup at 2 June 1793, and then Terror became the official policy of the state. When you abide violence in pursuit of political goal the only outcome is a river of blood.