Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

maxsolomon

(33,252 posts)

9. Then explain how it clarifies a topic.

Reply to Fullduplexxx (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 06:25 PM

Jul 2019

Par exemplo:

Statement: Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in the restroom of a Bergdorf Goodman.

Whataboutism: Well, Bill Clinton raped Juanita Brodderick.

Implication: Dems are hypocrites, they only care about rape when it's a Republic that does it. Therefore, it does not matter that the sitting POTUS is credibly accused of rape.

How does the whataboutism of Bill Clinton's actions "clarify" Trump's rape accusation?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

But what about "what aboutism"? [View all] kentuck Jul 2019 OP

Nothing wrong with whataboutism . People have gone to great lengths to try to make Fullduplexxx Jul 2019 #1

it is a bad thing. it needs to be recognized and called out. maxsolomon Jul 2019 #2

I dont agree .. but i understand why people dont like them Fullduplexxx Jul 2019 #4

it's a logical fallacy - as i said, it's purpose is to derail. maxsolomon Jul 2019 #6

I think it's purpose is to clarify not derail Fullduplexxx Jul 2019 #8

Then explain how it clarifies a topic. maxsolomon Jul 2019 #9

Well we dont know that bill raped her nor do we know that trump raped jean carrol however Fullduplexxx Jul 2019 #10

Whataboutism is merely predicating one standard on another. Hence, it's invalid. LanternWaste Jul 2019 #5

I dont agree it is invalid nor do i agree with your statement Fullduplexxx Jul 2019 #7

" You have two choices. Fight or surrender." mitch96 Jul 2019 #3