I looked at the page about the lynching catch-phrase and it’s also called “whataboutism”
Truly the most stupid term ever invented, it’s literally just refusing to level the play field so whenever someone summons whataboutism there can be no debate anymore
It’s declared a logical fallacy when in fact, invoking the “whataboutism logical fallacy” in debate is ITSELF an implicit combination of multiple logical fallacies. Kafkaesque doesn’t begin to describe it.
Exactly, I’d even say that one of the most important rule of a debate is that if you are proven to be hypocritical you lose. But whataboutism is making look like proving the opponent hypocrisy is actually the fallacy. So basically if both sides respect whataboutism they can both be hypocritical and accuse each other of absolutely anything
I looked at the page about the lynching catch-phrase and it’s also called “whataboutism”
Truly the most stupid term ever invented, it’s literally just refusing to level the play field so whenever someone summons whataboutism there can be no debate anymore
The idea of “whataboutism” is beyond infuriating.
It’s declared a logical fallacy when in fact, invoking the “whataboutism logical fallacy” in debate is ITSELF an implicit combination of multiple logical fallacies. Kafkaesque doesn’t begin to describe it.
Exactly, I’d even say that one of the most important rule of a debate is that if you are proven to be hypocritical you lose. But whataboutism is making look like proving the opponent hypocrisy is actually the fallacy. So basically if both sides respect whataboutism they can both be hypocritical and accuse each other of absolutely anything