That’s literally not whataboutism - whataboutism is when you use irrelevant topics to incorrectly prove a point. The poster literally said it was a litmus test, which means mentioning multiple things as they did is correct and is not whataboutism, especially since their argument is about propaganda.
Thanks, but you’re trying to use logic with tankies. They decided the URSS/China are always right, any proof against that narrative is just western propaganda according to them.
No, it’s really not. Once they said “litmus test”, that makes it clear they’re doing it intentionally, not as a logical fallacy - it’s gauging bias on common topics, which is relevant to a discussion on bias and propaganda. It’s not a series of seemingly-related non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I’d love to be proven wrong here - how is what they brought up not relevant to the topic of bias and propaganda, especially wrt the west?
Oh, it’s definitely ad-hominem, that I agree with - they were literally testing your biases, as they stated. I don’t think it’s whataboutism, just ad hominem, actually. They’re accusing you of being as biased as anyone else, then asking a shibboleth to prove their point - the whole premise is ad hominem at that point. I think the differentiating factor is that the questions were about your beliefs, not about the actual events they brought up.
You’re right! I thought the meaning of whataboutism was more specific than it was, you just have to respond to an accusation with another accusation, that’s it! TIL
Whataboutism
Whataboutism
Whataboutism
That’s literally not whataboutism - whataboutism is when you use irrelevant topics to incorrectly prove a point. The poster literally said it was a litmus test, which means mentioning multiple things as they did is correct and is not whataboutism, especially since their argument is about propaganda.
Thanks, but you’re trying to use logic with tankies. They decided the URSS/China are always right, any proof against that narrative is just western propaganda according to them.
Yes, which is exactly what they did.
No, it’s really not. Once they said “litmus test”, that makes it clear they’re doing it intentionally, not as a logical fallacy - it’s gauging bias on common topics, which is relevant to a discussion on bias and propaganda. It’s not a series of seemingly-related non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I’d love to be proven wrong here - how is what they brought up not relevant to the topic of bias and propaganda, especially wrt the west?
Running some McCarthyist “litmus test” is irrelevant to what I said. At best it’s whataboutism, at worst it’s just fishing for an ad-hominem.
Literally 100% or instances of liberals using the term whataboutism are them referring to something that is relevant to the general topic.
Oh, it’s definitely ad-hominem, that I agree with - they were literally testing your biases, as they stated. I don’t think it’s whataboutism, just ad hominem, actually. They’re accusing you of being as biased as anyone else, then asking a shibboleth to prove their point - the whole premise is ad hominem at that point. I think the differentiating factor is that the questions were about your beliefs, not about the actual events they brought up.
An ad-hominem is whataboutism: “Whatabout this thing that’s bad about you!” It’s an attempt to distract from the point with an irrelevant distraction.
You’re right! I thought the meaning of whataboutism was more specific than it was, you just have to respond to an accusation with another accusation, that’s it! TIL