That’s interesting. Why does that standard change so much in the context of presidential candidates compared to every other situation?
Like, if someone was criticizing, say, Fidel Castro, and instead of addressing it I brought up the problems with the Batista regime that he opposed, would that be whataboutism? Just as in a presidential election, there were two realistic possibilities, either Batista stays in power or he’s overthrown. So if it’s valid to divert from criticism of Biden towards problems with his most realistic alternative, Trump, then why would it not be valid to do the same thing with Castro and Batista, or any number of similar cases?
Understood. So as long as I’m talking about the same metric, I’m allowed to bring up how things were before a socialist government came to power and that’s not whataboutism.
When Castro and Batista will be running candidates, we can ask them their stance on Israel and give them cute nicknames, but until then, we can debate the stance of Biden and Trump, the two running candidates and compare their platform.
Their username is redditwanderer which is why I referenced reddit and in debatebro terms arguing against the statement about joe biden not being “well intentioned” because he supports genocide by bringing up how trump is worse is whataboutism.
This would make sense if the argument wasn’t used like Trump wouldn’t do the same. “Genocide joe” is just a bad argument when comparing presidents, not on it’s own.
We can talk about what Biden is doing wrong, but that’s not why they are bringing it up as the only argument they have.
Plus, Trump is going to turn around and enabled a second genocide in Ukraine.
Good intentions? He’s a genocide supporter - hardly a paragon of virtue
where are they implying trump wouldnt do the same? Imagine someone claimed hitler was evil and Roosevelt well intentioned. Someone pointing out that roosevelt was responsible for the unnecessary detonation of two atomic bombs over civilian population centers is not coming to hitlers defense. Roosevelt was a racist scumbag and so is Biden. None of this is a defense of trump.
Please don’t become the thing you likely abhor (Trumpists and alike) by reacting in a knee jerk fashing to things that “insult” your tribalist morals with a variant of the Fascist take “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”.
It’s perfectly rational and reasonable to think that Biden is not a “guy with good intentions” whilst also thinking that Trump is no better, whilst it’s irrational and unreasonable to think that just because one doesn’t like Person A, one must like Person B.
By any human being standards anybody who supports somebody mass murdering children with weapons is a shit person, hence Biden is a shit person. That doesn’t mean Trump is any less shit.
Even by American President Moral standards (which, sadly are way lower than Normal Person Moral standars, when they should be higher), activelly supporting with weapons a nation committing Genocide is pretty bad, though far from novel.
This would make sense if i had made any of those points. Clearly if youre making arguments like “genocide joe” you’re just in bad faith, because it’s genocide presidency atm.
You may not have understood the game yet, but people who aren’t ready to serve the military industrial complex don’t become president.
So youre saying you think Trump doesn’t support genocide? Or are you saying it doesn’t matter you just wanna bash Biden.
Congress loves genocide, doesn’t matter which president.
I thought whataboutism was like a cardinal sin to redditors
Good thing we’re on lemmy.
But it’s not whataboutism when we compare the two presidential candidates on their platform and actions.
That’s interesting. Why does that standard change so much in the context of presidential candidates compared to every other situation?
Like, if someone was criticizing, say, Fidel Castro, and instead of addressing it I brought up the problems with the Batista regime that he opposed, would that be whataboutism? Just as in a presidential election, there were two realistic possibilities, either Batista stays in power or he’s overthrown. So if it’s valid to divert from criticism of Biden towards problems with his most realistic alternative, Trump, then why would it not be valid to do the same thing with Castro and Batista, or any number of similar cases?
We are talking about a stance of two presidential candidates, the context matter when talking whataboutism.
In this case, the stance of both candidates on Israel is part of their political platform and we’re in the presidential campaign.
Whataboutism would be Republicans defending Trump on its criminal charge by talking about Hillary’s emails. Those two things are unrelated.
Understood. So as long as I’m talking about the same metric, I’m allowed to bring up how things were before a socialist government came to power and that’s not whataboutism.
When Castro and Batista will be running candidates, we can ask them their stance on Israel and give them cute nicknames, but until then, we can debate the stance of Biden and Trump, the two running candidates and compare their platform.
Is that hard to grasp?
Not at all. I’m just trying to establish the rules governing whataboutism, because it sometimes seems to me like there’s a double standard.
Their username is redditwanderer which is why I referenced reddit and in debatebro terms arguing against the statement about joe biden not being “well intentioned” because he supports genocide by bringing up how trump is worse is whataboutism.
I am dense and didn’t catch that.
This would make sense if the argument wasn’t used like Trump wouldn’t do the same. “Genocide joe” is just a bad argument when comparing presidents, not on it’s own.
We can talk about what Biden is doing wrong, but that’s not why they are bringing it up as the only argument they have.
Plus, Trump is going to turn around and enabled a second genocide in Ukraine.
where are they implying trump wouldnt do the same? Imagine someone claimed hitler was evil and Roosevelt well intentioned. Someone pointing out that roosevelt was responsible for the unnecessary detonation of two atomic bombs over civilian population centers is not coming to hitlers defense. Roosevelt was a racist scumbag and so is Biden. None of this is a defense of trump.
Please don’t become the thing you likely abhor (Trumpists and alike) by reacting in a knee jerk fashing to things that “insult” your tribalist morals with a variant of the Fascist take “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”.
It’s perfectly rational and reasonable to think that Biden is not a “guy with good intentions” whilst also thinking that Trump is no better, whilst it’s irrational and unreasonable to think that just because one doesn’t like Person A, one must like Person B.
By any human being standards anybody who supports somebody mass murdering children with weapons is a shit person, hence Biden is a shit person. That doesn’t mean Trump is any less shit.
Even by American President Moral standards (which, sadly are way lower than Normal Person Moral standars, when they should be higher), activelly supporting with weapons a nation committing Genocide is pretty bad, though far from novel.
Ok there chatgpt.
This would make sense if i had made any of those points. Clearly if youre making arguments like “genocide joe” you’re just in bad faith, because it’s genocide presidency atm.
You may not have understood the game yet, but people who aren’t ready to serve the military industrial complex don’t become president.