The approach nowadays to one's political opponent

[Standing Wolf]

Originally Posted by jes'fuchinwitcha
Bear in mind, "Conservatives" like to change the meanings of words. It's quite tricky to engage in any meaningful discussion with them.


No it isn't true. Handwringers, pearl clutches, and self loathers notwithstanding.

What does happen is the leftists attributing to the right exactly what the leftists are doing.

It has long been my experience here that whenever an instance of misbehavior, dishonesty or even criminality by a self-identified conservative is pointed out, the sole response has always been a flagrant what-about-ism. If you recognize your own posting tendencies in my criticism, perhaps you'd do the forum and yourself a service by posting better - more civilly, fairly and honestly - rather than resorting to the old playground "I'm rubber, you're glue" theme.

[Mister D]

It has long been my experience here that whenever an instance of misbehavior, dishonesty or even criminality by a self-identified conservative is pointed out, the sole response has always been a flagrant what-about-ism. If you recognize your own posting tendencies in my criticism, perhaps you'd do the forum and yourself a service by posting better - more civilly, fairly and honestly - rather than resorting to the old playground "I'm rubber, you're glue" theme.

If that has been your experience, it's because your one-sided musings are difficult to take seriously.

[Peter1469]

It has long been my experience here that whenever an instance of misbehavior, dishonesty or even criminality by a self-identified conservative is pointed out, the sole response has always been a flagrant what-about-ism. If you recognize your own posting tendencies in my criticism, perhaps you'd do the forum and yourself a service by posting better - more civilly, fairly and honestly - rather than resorting to the old playground "I'm rubber, you're glue" theme.

The problem with your in-depth analysis is that I am correct. And you are either hand wringing or pearl clutching. I don't think anyone here is interested in that.

[pjohns]

It has long been my experience here that whenever an instance of misbehavior, dishonesty or even criminality by a self-identified conservative is pointed out, the sole response has always been a flagrant what-about-ism.

You make a fair point about the limits of whataboutism: The technical name of this is the tu quoque fallacy.

But it is a logical fallacy only if it is intended to justify the behavior of one group (since the other group does it, also).

If it is meant merely to point our the hypocrisy of the competing group, then it would seem to be quite valid.

[jes'fuchinwitcha]

You make a fair point about the limits of whataboutism: The technical name of this is the tu quoque fallacy.

But it is a logical fallacy only if it is intended to justify the behavior of one group (since the other group does it, also).

If it is meant merely to point our the hypocrisy of the competing group, then it would seem to be quite valid.

Also a fair point. Regarding the excuse oriented whaddaboutisms, I find the most interesting ones to be related to attempting to excuse criminality or unethical behavior of a favorite politician or pundit by saying that an opponent did something similar. If that rationale became acceptable, soon there would be nothing but chaos.

[Hoosier8]

Recently, my wife and I have been watching Love It or List It on HGTV. In it, the participants choose between (1) three houses shown them by a real-estate agent (it is usually the last one that is the real contender) and (2) their original home, totally refurbished--actually, refurbished beyond all recognition--by a home designer.

Near the end, David Visentin (the real-estate agent) usually compliments Hillary Farr (the home designer) on the magnificent job that she has done--but then adds an important "but": "But has she given you [fill in the blank]"?

It seems to me that the same approach would be effective in the world of politics, also: "My opponent has some very good ideas; but it seems that he may fall short in this particular area."

Instead, he is typically made out to be the very apotheosis of all that is wrong and dangerous--and perhaps even evil.

This bare-knuckles approach--actually, more like a brass-knuckles approach--simply turns me off.

And I am guessing that it turns off a majority of Americans, also.

Comments?

Logic does not drive people to the polls, fear and anger does.

[Standing Wolf]

You make a fair point about the limits of whataboutism: The technical name of this is the tu quoque fallacy.

But it is a logical fallacy only if it is intended to justify the behavior of one group (since the other group does it, also).

If it is meant merely to point our the hypocrisy of the competing group, then it would seem to be quite valid.

It would, in fact, only be hypocrisy if the critic's "side" was not only guilty of it themselves, but if they denied that fault or tendency. Hypocrisy in that case requires more than simply pointing out someone else's flaw or misbehavior; it also requires that the one pointing out the flaw openly denies that they (or their group) is similarly guilty.

An example, in the context of this forum, would be if someone pointed out a politician's lie. and then made the statement, "That's just what liberals [or conservatives] do" - the implication being that the poster's own side is guilt-free in that area.

Let's be honest - if you or I could only post about an individual or group doing or saying something ridiculous, or about their being engaged in some misbehavior or criminality, if something similar (or worse) hadn't been done or said by someone whose "side" we ostensibly belong to, we'd have to remain silent on those stories. We both know that some of the human beings we may support and agree with are less than perfect. Responding to a story about something Hillary Clinton is supposed to have done by bringing up something Donald Trump is alleged to have done - or vise-versa - is more than a "whataboutism" - it's a diversion and a non sequitur.

[jes'fuchinwitcha]

It would, in fact, only be hypocrisy if the critic's "side" was not only guilty of it themselves, but if they denied that fault or tendency. Hypocrisy in that case requires more than simply pointing out someone else's flaw or misbehavior; it also requires that the one pointing out the flaw openly denies that they (or their group) is similarly guilty.

An example, in the context of this forum, would be if someone pointed out a politician's lie. and then made the statement, "That's just what liberals [or conservatives] do" - the implication being that the poster's own side is guilt-free in that area.

Let's be honest - if you or I could only post about an individual or group doing or saying something ridiculous, or about their being engaged in some misbehavior or criminality, if something similar (or worse) hadn't been done or said by someone whose "side" we ostensibly belong to, we'd have to remain silent on those stories. We both know that some of the human beings we may support and agree with are less than perfect. Responding to a story about something Hillary Clinton is supposed to have done by bringing up something Donald Trump is alleged to have done - or vise-versa - is more than a "whataboutism" - it's a diversion and a non sequitur.

A common flaw in the whaddaboutism ploy is the fallacy of false equivalence.

[Standing Wolf]

A common flaw in the whaddaboutism ploy is the fallacy of false equivalence.

That's certainly true - sometimes a person will really be reaching. However even when the actions or words are nearly identical, a "whataboutism" would only be on-topic and not a non sequitur if I wrote something like, "DeSantis did so-and-so, and that's not something any Democrat would ever be guilty of".

Another thing we see a lot is the "Where were you when so-and-so did the same thing", and they're referring to something that happened some time ago, when many of us were not even posting on political forums. Or - one I got just yesterday - "I'll bet you didn't think it was funny [or serious, or stupid, etc.] when so-and-so did it". Again, off-topic and not a meaningful or pertinent response.

[jes'fuchinwitcha]

That's certainly true - sometimes a person will really be reaching. However even when the actions or words are nearly identical, a "whataboutism" would only be on-topic and not a non sequitur if I wrote something like, "DeSantis did so-and-so, and that's not something any Democrat would ever be guilty of".

Another thing we see a lot is the "Where were you when so-and-so did the same thing", and they're referring to something that happened some time ago, when many of us were not even posting on political forums. Or - one I got just yesterday - "I'll bet you didn't think it was funny [or serious, or stupid, etc.] when so-and-so did it". Again, off-topic and not a meaningful or pertinent response.

I'm on the receiving end of new form of it where people troll me by accusing me of trolling - the only way to engage with that is to do a "butwhaddabout you" in response, which is a waste of time. The pragmatic thing to do is to cease in the interaction, and ignore the follow-on trolling of "runner" and "can't debate" taunts.

A lot of the crowd here is pretty low brow.