The United States on Friday released a U.S. intelligence assessment sent to more than 100 countries that found Moscow is using spies, social media and Russian state-run media to erode public faith in the integrity of democratic elections worldwide.
“This is a global phenomenon,” said the assessment. “Our information indicates that senior Russian government officials, including the Kremlin, see value in this type of influence operation and perceive it to be effective.”
A senior State Department official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said that Russia was encouraged to intensify its election influence operations by its success in amplifying disinformation about the 2020 U.S. election and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Where is the place for whataboutism then? Never? When a narrative is being pushed in the media that is hypocritical, should we just accept it? People seem to think anyone critical of America is defending Russia/China or another country. I think it’s downright UN-American and negligent to never try to make the country you reside in live up to the standards it puts forth.
Well, you could start your own Lemmy post speaking specifically about the United States, instead of derailing this post talking about Russia.
I can do both, and do.
Do you understand the concept of derailing a conversation?
They probably do, as evidenced by the fact that they’re attempting to do so.
Russia interfered. What’s the conversation to be derailed? No one is saying it didn’t happen. They are just pointing out the hypocrisy because America does it too. Claiming “whataboutism” suppresses dissent and promotes the state department narrative.
They can point out that hypocrisy in their own post, instead of derailing this one.
Nah, this is just how a conversation works IRL. Points, counterpoints.
All parties just agreeing with each other staying on the same point is not a conversation.
Making a counterpoint can hardly be considered derailing the conversation .
Whataboutism is not a counterpoint. A counterpoint would be disagreeing with the original point being made, not bringing up a new point.
One point at a time is what’s being advocated.
Might want to edit your comments to use the correct word.
Ta
Fine. Carry on with the foreign hate, while ignoring America’s problems. Can you at least acknowledge that the US has interfered in foreign elections? Lol
I have no problem discussing that, at all. Create a topic I’ll be glad to add my opinion to it.
The only point I’m making is that you shouldn’t be discussing two distinct points simultaneously, take them one at a time.
Even Jesus gets this. Why can’t you?
deleted by creator
The place is indeed “never”. Every action should be addressed in the vacuum of its own context. Whatabousims detract from the argument at hand and prevent a Socratic exchange from narrowing its scope sufficiently enough to reach a consensus of understanding.
It’s not about deflecting hypocrisy, it’s about being able to have sane arguments in good faith.
Maybe have a Big Think?
Thank you. This is far more coherent than what i wrote. I’m tired of seeing conversations shutdown or railroaded by people crying whataboutism.
Whataboutism is like false choice and straw man combined. Not only is the suggestion that one needs to choose between being critical of Russia or US, that it’s either/or, but you’re also then implying that the person you’re replying to is making an argument in support of one of the things. That they can’t possibly believe both things to be bad.
They are only talking about one BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.
It’s fallacious, so yes, its time is never.
It is called a false dichotomy:
I am aware of what a false dichotomy is. Some people use it interchangeably with “false choice/dilemma”.
Been years since I took a logic course, but here’s a link that talks about the differences:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/false-dilemma-fallacy/
Oh, yeah no I just dropped that as a general FYI for anyone passing by not as engaging with the argument, I find a lot of people don’t know.
Is the whataboutism in the room with us now?
Lol, caring about being rational is lame
If this were rational you wouldn’t be giving it so much energy. The whataboutism would have been dismissed and people would have moved on and focused on the article. The fact that the whataboutism worked shows just how irrational this is. It proves that the whataboutism is a valid point.
How did it work. Do you think typing this comment takes a lot of energy? I’m not really invested in this at all.
Then stop 🛑
Show me where the whataboutism poked you.
Yes, never is the correct answer. It’s cheap, obvious and condescending as fuck as well as being a total waste of time. The correct thing to do with whataboutism is to call it out and then ignore. Like what I am doing with you right now.
You have a different definition of ignore than I do.