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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
But what about the Grand Canyon?
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.
But what about the moon landing?