• Nevoic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Calling this whataboutism is like responding to the claim “people have a biological urge to reproduce” as a naturalistic fallacy.

    You’re using the word in sorta the right ballpark (I did make a comparison, e.g a “what about”), however not every time someone says “what about X” are they committing a fallacy.

    My entire point was how terrorist is a loaded word, that we only use it to describe one side (the side not in power), even though the technical definition obviously fits organizations in power. Making a comparison to demonstrate my literal only point isn’t fallacious.

    There were native american terror groups, yet the U.S government that literally genocided millions of native Americans isn’t a terror organization, despite their use of terror and violence to achieve political goals. It’s a word with clear problematic etymology.

    • FiniteBanjo
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      The CIA supporting Fascism in South America has fuck all to do with a confrontation between militarized police and a cult on May 13th 1985 in Philadelphia. If you think that’s not whataboutism then you’re dumb as a sack of bricks.

      • Nevoic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah no need to get this hostile.

        The word “terrorist” was used, and getting into the etymology of the word is best exemplified by how large “non-terrorist” organizations operate exactly like large terrorist organizations.

        • FiniteBanjo
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah but what about the CIA, right? Those are an example of terrorists, right? But yeah what about Hillary Clinton’s Emails? But what about the cost of recycling solar? What about it, right? What about those, you got an answer for those?

          • Nevoic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Exactly. And saying “what about” isn’t always a fallacy. That’s like thinking anyone says a natural fact they’re committing a naturalistic fallacy.

              • Nevoic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yup, you can also make comparisons to irrelevant things. Not all comparisons are fallacious.

                The way the CIA/IDF behave compared to other “terrorist” organizations is relevant to the etymology of the word. I don’t see how the Grand Canyon relates to any point you or I made.

                  • Nevoic@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Oh wow, I didn’t get it until this message, fuck I’m an idiot. All comparisons are always fallacious. Thanks for helping me out, friend.