• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    You’re literally advocating for the concept of a fallacy which is basically whining “no you can’t just provide context nooo that would defeat my point.” Which was first used to excuse British colonial brutality and later used to defend lynching.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        If you mention that the soviet union used tear gas in rare instances and therefore they’re authoritarian then I mention that the US frequently tear gasses protestors and BLM organizers keep showing up having shot themselves in the back of the head twice and you dont call them authoritarian that’s “whataboutism” and it isnt a fallacy, it is providing context that points out hypocrisy.

        You dont want to understand yourself to be a hypocrite but you don’t want to change, is what it boils down to. So you do the though terminating “whataboutism” and you can ignore it.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s a shitty way of separating it though. It relies on knowing authorial intent which is impossible. You can project whatever you want onto the other person and based on that theyre either doing a logical fallacy or not.