replying “Whataboutism” is just a reductive way to defend “hypocrisy” in a geopolitical context. which is worse? Not being aware of the similarity and replying “whataboutism”, or being aware of the similarity just gaslighting and deflecting with whoever pointed out the hypocrisy?
most of these observations are very valid
just because you coincidentally respect the due process that reaches a result, doesn’t mean that it is a functionally different or better. its only indoctrination and pure happenstance to whatever you were exposed to first.
It's hypocrisy when X criticizes Y for doing something that X also does. It's not hypocrisy for a third party to criticize party X for doing something they're not doing, even if they fail to bring up a criticism of Y in the same breath.
Yup. Whataboutism is only fallacious if you use it to claim moral superiority. Whataboutism is not fallacious if you're trying to draw an equivalent between two actors.
How is whataboutism even fallacious. You can be logically consistent and still do whataboutism. It's more like a distraction to an argument being made. There nothing that inherently makes it fallacious.
I can understand that argument, but some people do essentially use whataboutism as a tu quoque to completely dismiss an argument and treat it as obsolete. Obviously this is very rarely the case.
most of these observations are very valid
just because you coincidentally respect the due process that reaches a result, doesn’t mean that it is a functionally different or better. its only indoctrination and pure happenstance to whatever you were exposed to first.