What About "What-About-Ism"?

 
I have recently been accused of using "what about ism" as a rhetorical device and I am told in no uncertain terms that it is an unacceptable technique.  This blog post will discuss some of the issues as I attempt to understand what my position will be on this matter.  I may have to change my position after this exercise.

There are several types of "what about ism", I propose, and each of these deserves their own discussion.

In the first case, someone argues "what about <blah>" where <blah> is an assertion of some fact that turns out not be true.  Someone might excuse Donald Trump's criminal activities by saying "What about Hillary Clinton?  She had non-consensual sex with children in pizza parlors".  Obviously this did not happen and so this kind of "what about ism" is or should be invalid.

The second case might be called "the false equivalency".  In this case, someone might argue that sure, Donald Trump abused women but "Hillary Clinton once got a traffic ticket for speeding.  What about that?".   It may be that Hillary was once caught speeding, I have no idea, but it is irrelevant.  Again, easy to dismiss.

The third situation is more problematic.  In this case, the case is made that whoever is making the accusations are guilty of the same crimes or worse and has no moral right to make the accusations.  I see this kind of problem every day of the week, and it is a variation of the aphorism "Let those who are without sin throw the first stone".   In some cases, it might be best if the accuser led by example.

There are far too many examples of this.  It would be tiresome to go over them. 

So what is the conclusion about "what about ism"?  My conclusion is that when used correctly it is a valid way to point out hypocrisy.  Others wont like that and think that it is just a technique for deflecting from the issue at hand.  Both may be true.

Picture courtesy of Mid Journey

How to Understand Republican Arguments

draft

I have an approach to help understand and interpret something a Republican says in favor or against some proposition.  For example, a Republican might say that abortion should be decided by the states.  Or a Republican might in a few months say that abortion should be decided by the federal government and not by the states.  And these are the same Republicans so it can be confusing.  I have a technique that helps me understand such things and I want to share it with you.

 

Remember in the following that "all models are wrong but some are useful".  In other words, I am not suggesting that Republicans are lying pieces of garbage.  I am saying that they appear to be lying pieces of garbage for the purposes of predicting future behavior.

 

The technique is as follows.  When a Republican makes an argument such as "abortion should be decide by the states", what they are really saying is "We want to outlaw abortion and we will say any damn thing we want to attain that goal. Then when it is convenient to say something else to attain that goal, that is what we will, without hesitation, do.  We are shameless and powermad and there is no point in arguing with us because you are just wasting your time.  We dont believe our arguments either".

The Democrats, being endlessly naive and weak, fall for this trick over and over again.  Dear Democrats: please grow up.  Stop falling for this trick, it makes you look stupid and it does us (remember us? the little people?) no good.

Letter to Bob Re: Trump, Bullying and Debating Technique

draft

Another letter to my friend Bob who has tried to argue that since Trump has “forgiven” some people he previously attacked, that he is suitable to be President of the United States.

Bob

A climate denier will say that the climate is not warming, see Antarctica is gaining ice mass for 3 years in a row.

But we are not discussing whether or not there was a temporary increase in ice mass in Antarctica (if there actually was, or whether that was an anomaly of an imperfect measuring system due to budget limitations on earth science), we are discussing whether or not the hundreds of indices we have, combined with climate theory that makes certain predictions about a very complicated and imperfectly understood topic, global climate, tells us that our release of carbon into the world is or should affect climate, and yes, the evidence says that it does.

This is a well known debating technique when one does not want to acknowledge that the other side has all the evidence and you are grasping at straws. So while I do appreciate the compliment I am not all that interested in wasting my time.

Trump has been a bully in public, often via Twitter literally hundreds of times since I have been watching, less than a year. If you pay me, I will be happy to count the number of times, usually an ad hominem or a direct and unambiguous lie.

I thought I was discussing with friends whether or not Trump was in any way a suitable person to be president of the United States.

To save you some time, I have enclosed a list of phony and fallacious debating techniques for you to use in the future.

But if you would do me a favor, please avoid using them with me. I am a little busy and I dont respect the arguments so its a waste of both our time.

https://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html

Sincerely,

MW

Global Wahrman