Which allows me to defend my hilarious Elizabeth Warren response the other day. To recap...
Somebody: Santos is a liar.
Me: Is he telling people that he's an American Indian?
Chris94: That's whataboutism and you are immoral.
Not so fast. According to Chris's own definition, whataboutism is a "deflection. It’s saying that two wrongs make a right - and is the height of immoral thinking."
I was not saying or even implying that Santos' and Warren's lies cancelled each other out. I was saying that they are both liars and that those two wrongs make two wrongs.
Chris said I was doing whataboutism, when in fact, I was doing goodpointism, which is the height of moral thinking, ipso facto, I am moral and make good points.
Among millions of other leftist-pushed lies. Nowhere have we heard the left demand that the perpetrators of it get canceled.
Therefore, the indignant cries over Santos from said group falls on deaf ears. Eat shit.
Well, for some people I suppose it’s complicated.
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#:~:text=Whataboutism%20or%20whataboutery%20(as%20in,which%20expresses%20a%20counter%2Daccusation.
(no message)
Rather than post about your disappointment that the GOP leadership lacks the integrity to ban/expel Santos form the House, you want to point to Senator Warren's statement that she has Native American blood as a like equivalent because "all lies are bad."
And January 6th = rioting that took place in the summer of 2020. What about Black Lives Matter?
And Trump's Big Lie = What about Hillary in 2016? What about Stacy Abrams in 2018?
Consider the one eyesore front lawn with uncut mice infested grass amidst a neighborhood where everyone dutifully maintains a tidy property. You would defend the asshole homeowner by pointing to a single weed in another neighbor's yard.
Santos embraces what the GOP has become under Trump, where fraud and dishonesty are King, where weaponizing falsehoods is policy, where moral courage and integrity go to die.
(no message)
See how you are arguing that you shouldn't be questioned about your hypocrisy?
It's completely reasonable for someone to wonder why you are big mad about Trump lying, but why it's a nothingburger when HRC does it.
You know it's a reasonable question, but you don't have an answer. What do you do? You can't just say, "Hey stop questioning me. Questioning me is immoral." So you came up with a term that has the definition of "Hey stop questioning me. Questioning me is immoral."
It's really clever.
Definition - the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
"the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism"
Merriam-Webster -
the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse
The exchange is indicative of a rhetorical strategy known as whataboutism, which occurs when officials implicated in wrongdoing whip out a counter-example of a similar abuse from the accusing country, with the goal of undermining the legitimacy of the criticism itself.
—Olga Khazan
By whataboutism I mean the way any discussion can be short-circuited by saying "but what about x???" where x is usually something that's not really equivalent but is close enough to turn the conversation into mush.
—Touré
also : the response itself
They accomplish it by muddying the waters and distracting from international criticisms with whataboutisms such as telling the world that there's nothing exceptional about America.
—Alex Zeldin
And basically you and your pals were doing exactly that - deflecting.
Taking the focus away from Santos possible fraudulent money issues and putting Warren in the way of criticism instead by way of, wait for it - a whataboutism.
You did it all day. The evidence being your posts. In fact you Rs practice that technique as the go to posting. You may wish to deny it but the proof is here.
criticism of you inconsistent thinking. Take the win. It's clever. It's bullshit, but it's clever.
(no message)
Try to keep up, buddy. You're doing fine. I just need you to move a little faster.
(no message)
Thurston Howell fucks.
And I'll be damned if I'm going to let this go unnoted. In fact, it was such an egregious example of whatabououtism that I am officially assigning you with two...count 'em...two wrongs. That equals one BIG wrong. And one big wrong equals one gigantic pile of disinformation. Yes, I said it, d-i-s-i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n. Shame should pile on your back like dandruff on the shoulders of an old man who's given only hardwater showers. I so hope that the Easter Bunny or the VP tell numerous social media platforms to blacklist you.
(no message)
...that only allows them to use it.
I've tried your exact use of this before...to condemn both. But, they just assume you are defending someone they disagree with, instead of condemning both. Meanwhile, they will turn down all invitations to condemn both, because they are always in the right, in their minds.
and you nutties say it’s not true.
I guess Baron is just as lousy at this as you.
Hypocrisy lurks at the heart of every liberal. And as correctly pointed out by jabba, Chris and the others will not condemn both sides for the same action. Instead, they will claim “Whataboutism” and then remained focused on their opponent, while finding the behavior in question perfectly acceptable for themselves.
Lying to get elected to the extent that Santos did, is the most despicable of lies and we cannot stand for it. And there is no moral equivalence to other politicians who lied to get elected.
Furthermore, lying to get elected is way worse than lying while in office to obstruct justice, lying while in office to subvert the constitution, lying to coverup crimes and corruption and lying that results in innocent people's suffering or death. No sir, we cannot accept lying to the extent that Santos did. It is totally different.
It would be cool if the political class and the media decided that "we're interested in finding the truth, no matter where it takes us", and we won't accept lies from elected officials, political appointed heads of 3 letter agencies, CEOs in official hearings or 'journalists'. But I'm not optimistic.
I've observed that the majority of this board is willing to condemn all bad behavior, but there are a handful of members that love to make excuses.
It makes sense then, that the excuse making members would infer that everyone is trying to deflect, because that is in fact their default response.
Chris, Jim, you are bad at inferring things.
is at issue, it is is the campaign finance laws he apparently dismissed by using funds to pay for his lifestyle.
He also fucked with Goldman Sachs and besmirched their (good) name and like a bad movie and, they’re going to get their pound of flesh.
Side question, do you believe Epstein committed suicide?
“The president . . . has taken action to secure our border and build a fair, orderly and humane immigration system.”
— WH Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Dec. 6
Link: Whoppers from this year's liars in gov't and media.
(no message)
Shit, this isn't going to work, well, at least we still have Twitter.
on the who the rabbit is in Alice in Wonderland.
The NYT and WaPo are leftists who refuse to retract lies, even when caught.
I love The NY Post, not to be confused with that rag named The New York Daily News.
So, in your world the source nullifies the factual quotes?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
that the NY Post's reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop was baseless Russian disinformation, but later we found out that the NY Post was the only credible source of information on the topic?
Unless you have a counter example (which I will refer to as whataboutism), the NY Post appears to be credible. In that case, it is your new sources that should be questioned, not Fred's.