90% of the arguments in this thread are whataboutismsyou're right I forgot about the very valid what about MBS argument
you're right I forgot about the very valid what about MBS argument
I'm such a fool! Why would anyone ever give attention to what's going on in the most democratic country in front of our eyes as we hold and shake their clean hands? (MBS was behind the murder of a US-based journalist for simply speaking out against the Saudi regime, but you know, that's just a "what about" argument, it doesn't matter). Now, let's accuse others when it suits us, because we're in a position to do so, our successful foreign policy proves it and no one can say otherwise, even allowing us the right to decide which country is good or bad for everyone to the point of accusing them for almost anything without taking the time to look at ourselves in a mirror first. Do not criticize our foreign policies and be thankful to have such an exceptionally phenomenal, stupendous, peaceful and diplomatically non-threatening foreign policy that assures us a promising future!90% of the arguments in this thread are whataboutisms
a distraction from what? i mean, in this specific case, what is the 'main argument' that we are 'distracting you' from. because i'm pretty sure the whole point being made by zerses was that biden is a piece of shit hypocrite. if you take issue with that, just say soso whataboutism is basically a distraction.
It was hard for me to answer you not only because it's almost 5 AM for me and I'm sleeping, but because it's not something I should be doing when you literally answered with a bunch of nonsense, but I'm going to ask the same question lilyhollow has asked you before (which is a well made post on what I was trying to say), how is it a fallacy and distraction what I just asked on MBS? I don't get it.Whataboutism arguments are basically always used to distract from problems with your own argument. It can and has been used by Nazis who point out atrocities committed by the Allies, tankies who point out problems with western imperialism, imperialists who point out atrocities done by native people, Islamic extremists who will point to discrimination of Muslims in the west, etc. The point of these arguments is so the arguer never has to defend their arguments in favor of their beliefs and refocus the argument on the opponent, so whataboutism is basically a distraction. Also, it makes use of the tu quoque fallacy, as America being a hypocrite on some issues does not make their criticisms of Russia etc. wrong.
Basically, whataboutisms are lazy, can be used to defend any position, just distract from the main point of the argument, and are just built on a fallacy. You should never use whataboutism arguments to seriously argue a point.
Not only is this an extremely dumb form of "whataboutism," Biden's been focused on punishing MBS without damaging relations with the most important ally in the Middle East. There are already sanctions on Saudi officials, and the White House has already taken punitive measures crippling the Saudi war effort. WADDABOWT EM BEE EZZ is such an embarrassing argument to make lmao. But tankies who defend fascist Russia were already the definition of embarrassingYeah, let's go back to the cold war and call Russia's president a killer, let's point a finger on him and sanction him, because we think we've got enough moral to do so. This, of course, does not apply when we forget and forgive crimes made by Mohammed bin Salman (just so I can give you an example), because then who would buy our weapons to be used in foreign countries, and how would we dare to sanction an heir to the crown of one of the most democratic countries in the world! I'm pretty sure that's not being a killer either, not even enough to point a finger and impose sanctions on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman himself as we do on Russia. This makes our international policies much more diplomatic and serious.
What will we do next? take Putin's words in wishing Biden good health as a threat just because he fell three times on his way up to Air Force One? jeez. I mean I thought it wouldn't be any bad than Trump's policies, but turns out it's exactly the same.
I'm pointing out how stupid whataboutism is since I can use it to shut down any argument you make since you are on a device that uses a transistor. You can't weasel out of it by saying that your use is okay and it's only bad in the most extreme of circumstances.no, but i think you should be banned from this website? did you actually think that was something?
So I was gonna make a post like above (note: no longer the one above) but was sniped, so I’ll just diversify the fallacies and say this is appeal to absurdity lmao. I can oppose deforestation while using paper to write notes in my university lectures. Thrusting individual responsibility on those who are involuntarily participatory in systems is one of the worst addles of modern political discourse, and is weaponisation of a flawed understanding of tu quoque. On the other hand, criticising the people who create these systems and are ideology leaders (like Biden) is valid and they can be called out for hypocrisy.Okay, let me put this another way, since you guys clearly are too daft to see why whataboutism and tu quoque are stupid arguments. That would be like me saying you have no right to complain about child slavery, because you are currently using a device that has transistors in it and the tungsten in those transistors is mined using child slavery in the Congo, so clearly you all are huge hypocrites and you shouldn't complain.
the only thing you've demonstrated is that 'whataboutism' can, in certain cases, be used as a valid criticism of an argument. well no shit, i guess that makes you happy and satisfies you or whatever and that's great, but i'm only here to talk about how it absolutely does not apply to this specific biden case. people really learn the name of a fallacy and just throw it around anywhere thinking they're doing something ;_;I'm pointing out how stupid whataboutism is since I can use it to shut down any argument you make since you are on a device that uses a transistor. You can't weasel out of it by saying that your use is okay and it's only bad in the most extreme of circumstances.
Bro.It still does, it's basically another version of the "And you are lynching negroes" argument. Your basic case is that the President of the U.S. should never be able to criticize another country for human rights violations, and while we agree that the U.S. should be doing better with regards to human rights, we should still be able to criticize other countries' human rights violations without having them defend themselves using whataboutism.
Regardless of the intention, though, this post does downplay the issues expressed with Russia. This post is bad for other reasons, though, cherrypicking quotes and taking them out of context to make Biden look like more a warmongerer. For example, this post does not mention the part in the article where Biden said he wanted to cooperate with Russia on certain issues like arms control, and took some parts out of context - for example, the "no soul" part was something that Biden said to Putin's face (Putin supposedly responded "we understand one another") and he responded to whether or not he thought Putin was a killer with “Mmm hmm, yes I do.” Seriously, took me only around a minute to read the article and see that this person was oversensationalizing everything.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/17/joe-biden-vladimir-putin-election-interference
It hasn't been more than 2 months since Biden took office and it's as if he couldn't do any worse. He says Putin is a "killer with no soul" and will "pay a price" for an alleged election meddling. The fact that some people think of him as the "peacemaker" we so desperately needed is simply laughable, but I guess foreign interventionism through sanctions and military actions to destabilize and cause suffering to these countries isn't even close to being a killer.
If every country in which the US government has been involved in numerous interventions made Biden pay for every single one of their interference, the guy would be left with a debt for which he would have to live, die and be reborn 100 times to pay it off, but he's the one to talk about an alleged Russian interference, okay.
you keep trying to subtly change your argument as if no one will notice. no one said that other countries get to avoid solving their own human rights problems. whatever human rights issues are happening in any other country, i hope they solve those problems. that does not give the united states the moral authority to criticize them.It still does
It's still the same argument, "that does not give the united states the moral authority to criticize them" is basically a perfect example of tu quoque.you keep trying to subtly change your argument as if no one will notice. no one said that other countries get to avoid solving their own human rights problems. whatever human rights issues are happening in any other country, i hope they solve those problems. that does not give the united states the moral authority to criticize them.
if you want a discussion that centers around other countries' human rights abuses, maybe create another thread. the matter at hand is the us/biden's hypocrisy though.
Alright then Duterte, who Biden is still buddying up to but is head of one of the worst regimes in the world right now and has been for years.i love how nobody's bothered to address the fact that Biden's State Department has been punishing MBS, in favour of complaining about an appearance of "hypocrisy" that's completely divorced from the reality of the past 2 months
Duterte is backed by the PRC lmao. Claiming the US supports him is completely out of touch with reality.Alright then Duterte, who Biden is still buddying up to but is head of one of the worst regimes in the world right now and has been for years.
It was a throwaway example, there are many.
No, it's more that "moral authority" isn't really a thing. Facts remain true regardless of who says them.seems like literally what you're saying, at the end of the day, is: "the US does have moral authority to criticize other countries' human rights abuses. if you disagree, that's automatically whataboutism." yahhhhh idk i think we're done here :|
.................it's literally on their website. https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-the-philippines/#:~:text=The United States and the Philippines have a strong trade,and services traded (2086).&text=The two countries have a,1989, and a tax treaty.Duterte is backed by the PRC lmao. Claiming the US supports him is completely out of touch with reality.
Let America know that "moral authority" isn't really a thing so they stop trying to homogenise the world's politics and they finally end interventionist wars then thanks ^^No, it's more that "moral authority" isn't really a thing. Facts remain true regardless of who says them.
Yeah, two countries trading with each other isn't really evidence of countries supporting each other's government. That's like saying the U.S. supports the PRC and vice versa