|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:
Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!!
The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term.
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!!
"yeah, sure we're supporting a child molester, but they're only not supporting Franken to make us look bad so who's the real bad guys?"
it's still you
"it's not like they're denouncing Moore out of any real principle so who's really the principled side here, the child molester or the people denouncing him?"
possible neither, definitely not the child molester
|
On December 08 2017 03:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote:On December 08 2017 02:52 Introvert wrote:
Gillibrand was out compaigning with Bill Clinton not that long ago. Then a few weeks ago they were going have an ethics committee look at it (where nothing ever happens). but now that polls show Moore winning again and the magical number of 7 accusers was reached, now we must stand strong!
They obviously get some credit, but not too much. Hilarious. I don't really agree that they get any credit. If you do something for political reasons that happens to be ethical, that's not at all the same as being ethical.Granted, that's certainly better than what the GOP's doing, but I don't look at see a choice between a conman and a murder and think to myself "Man, thank God we have this conman so we don't have to pick the murder. The conman is so ethical by comparison!" This means that there can be no ethics in politics, because doing the right thing might be seen as a positive and therefore politically advantageous. I can’t tell if you are really cynical or just didn’t think that one through to the end.
Or maybe the ethical value of one's actions depends on one's motives? Revolutionary stuff I know.
Admittedly, it's hard to ascertain one's intent in practice but this discussion began under the explicit assumption from KwarK that the resignation was politically motivated.
|
On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term.
People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason.
On December 08 2017 03:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! "yeah, sure we're supporting a child molester, but they're only not supporting Franken to make us look bad so who's the real bad guys?" it's still you "it's not like they're denouncing Moore out of any real principle so who's really the principled side here, the child molester or the people denouncing him?" possible neither, definitely not the child molester
Never said that, it exists entirely in your own head.
|
On December 08 2017 03:11 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:04 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote:On December 08 2017 02:52 Introvert wrote:
Gillibrand was out compaigning with Bill Clinton not that long ago. Then a few weeks ago they were going have an ethics committee look at it (where nothing ever happens). but now that polls show Moore winning again and the magical number of 7 accusers was reached, now we must stand strong!
They obviously get some credit, but not too much. Hilarious. I don't really agree that they get any credit. If you do something for political reasons that happens to be ethical, that's not at all the same as being ethical.Granted, that's certainly better than what the GOP's doing, but I don't look at see a choice between a conman and a murder and think to myself "Man, thank God we have this conman so we don't have to pick the murder. The conman is so ethical by comparison!" This means that there can be no ethics in politics, because doing the right thing might be seen as a positive and therefore politically advantageous. I can’t tell if you are really cynical or just didn’t think that one through to the end. Or maybe the ethical value of one's actions depends on one's intent? Revolutionary stuff I know.
But we can’t know intent and your argument doesn’t address it. So using your argument, we can safely assume no politician every does anything for ethical reasons and they cannot be given credit for it. Because doing things for politically advantage nullifies ethical reasons for doing it.
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 08 2017 03:11 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:04 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote:On December 08 2017 02:52 Introvert wrote:
Gillibrand was out compaigning with Bill Clinton not that long ago. Then a few weeks ago they were going have an ethics committee look at it (where nothing ever happens). but now that polls show Moore winning again and the magical number of 7 accusers was reached, now we must stand strong!
They obviously get some credit, but not too much. Hilarious. I don't really agree that they get any credit. If you do something for political reasons that happens to be ethical, that's not at all the same as being ethical.Granted, that's certainly better than what the GOP's doing, but I don't look at see a choice between a conman and a murder and think to myself "Man, thank God we have this conman so we don't have to pick the murder. The conman is so ethical by comparison!" This means that there can be no ethics in politics, because doing the right thing might be seen as a positive and therefore politically advantageous. I can’t tell if you are really cynical or just didn’t think that one through to the end. Or maybe the ethical value of one's actions depends on one's intent? Revolutionary stuff I know.
And in this case the intent is to try and deflect attention from supporting a child molester by trying to turn this into a "both sides" narrative. And somehow the both sides is "yeah, but they're being really cynical", as if that's somehow equivalent.
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason.
Perhaps you don't even understand why you felt an instinctive need to insist that this is a both sides issue where the Democrats are just as bad because they're denouncements of sexual abuse are rooted in cynicism. But that's what you were doing.
|
On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason.
Focusing on the paltry short comings of the Democrats is pretty rich when the GOP is openly supporting a racist child molester for office. And has a man that admitted to sexual assault as its current leader. In all reality, your party would welcome someone like Clinton with open arms if it meant they could get more political power. While the party you are focusing on is attempting divesting itself of people like Clinton.
That is the very core of whataboutism. It is an effort to deflect the discussion to literally anything else at all times.
|
On December 08 2017 03:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Perhaps you don't even understand why you felt an instinctive need to insist that this is a both sides issue where the Democrats are just as bad because they're denouncements of sexual abuse are rooted in cynicism. But that's what you were doing.
Where have I insisted this is a "both sides issue." Seriously, where are you getting all this? You read into my motivations harder than you do the Democrat politicians! 
|
On December 08 2017 03:11 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:04 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote:On December 08 2017 02:52 Introvert wrote:
Gillibrand was out compaigning with Bill Clinton not that long ago. Then a few weeks ago they were going have an ethics committee look at it (where nothing ever happens). but now that polls show Moore winning again and the magical number of 7 accusers was reached, now we must stand strong!
They obviously get some credit, but not too much. Hilarious. I don't really agree that they get any credit. If you do something for political reasons that happens to be ethical, that's not at all the same as being ethical.Granted, that's certainly better than what the GOP's doing, but I don't look at see a choice between a conman and a murder and think to myself "Man, thank God we have this conman so we don't have to pick the murder. The conman is so ethical by comparison!" This means that there can be no ethics in politics, because doing the right thing might be seen as a positive and therefore politically advantageous. I can’t tell if you are really cynical or just didn’t think that one through to the end. Or maybe the ethical value of one's actions depends on one's intent? Revolutionary stuff I know. Admittedly, it's hard to ascertain one's intent in practice but this discussion began under the explicit assumption from KwarK that the resignation was politically motivated.
while it is worth giving some credence to intent; it's lack of judicability makes it a poor metric to use in general, especially as a predominant one.
it's also rarer in general than the more typical ethical bases.
|
On December 08 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Focusing on the paltry short comings of the Democrats is pretty rich when the GOP is openly supporting a racist child molester for office. And has a man that admitted to sexual assault as its current leader. In all reality, your party would welcome someone like Clinton with open arms if it meant they could get more political power. While the party you are focusing on is attempting divesting itself of people like Clinton. That is the very core of whataboutism. It is an effort to deflect the discussion to literally anything else at all times.
You are right, this post right here IS whataboutism.
"Yes I knew you were talking only about the Democrats, but I think you are just trying to deflect from Moore, therefore whataboutism."
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 08 2017 03:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:15 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Perhaps you don't even understand why you felt an instinctive need to insist that this is a both sides issue where the Democrats are just as bad because they're denouncements of sexual abuse are rooted in cynicism. But that's what you were doing. Where have I insisted this is a "both sides issue." Seriously, where are you getting all this? You read into my motivations harder than you do the Democrat politicians!
Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton
Shapiro's tweet which you were here defending was 110% both sides whataboutism. Sure, the Republicans are running a child molester, but don't worry about that because the Democrats are also perverted and they're so sick that they're only getting their pervert to resign because they're trying to make us look bad so who's really in the wrong here.
Still you Shaprio. Still you.
|
On December 08 2017 03:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:15 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Perhaps you don't even understand why you felt an instinctive need to insist that this is a both sides issue where the Democrats are just as bad because they're denouncements of sexual abuse are rooted in cynicism. But that's what you were doing. Where have I insisted this is a "both sides issue." Seriously, where are you getting all this? You read into my motivations harder than you do the Democrat politicians!
You attack Flake for supporting a democrat because it makes him a bad conservative. You attack the Democrats motives because they can’t be pure. The only person you don’t seem to attack is Moore or Trump. They seem to be pretty cool people for you. Or you claim to not like them, but cheer on their policies because it gets you what you want.
|
On December 08 2017 03:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Focusing on the paltry short comings of the Democrats is pretty rich when the GOP is openly supporting a racist child molester for office. And has a man that admitted to sexual assault as its current leader. In all reality, your party would welcome someone like Clinton with open arms if it meant they could get more political power. While the party you are focusing on is attempting divesting itself of people like Clinton. That is the very core of whataboutism. It is an effort to deflect the discussion to literally anything else at all times. You are right, this post right here IS whataboutism. "Yes I knew you were talking only about the Democrats, but I think you are just trying to deflect from Moore, therefore whataboutism."
I don’t need to say anything. I called for Frankin to resign after the second account of sexual harassment came out. I have openly talked about the Democrats needing to clean house. I have supported Republicans who stood against Moore. I have happily talked about the short comings of Democrats. I don’t want to win at all costs. I have standards.
|
On December 08 2017 03:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:17 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:15 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Perhaps you don't even understand why you felt an instinctive need to insist that this is a both sides issue where the Democrats are just as bad because they're denouncements of sexual abuse are rooted in cynicism. But that's what you were doing. Where have I insisted this is a "both sides issue." Seriously, where are you getting all this? You read into my motivations harder than you do the Democrat politicians! Shapiro's tweet which you were here defending was 110% both sides whataboutism. Sure, the Republicans are running a child molester, but don't worry about that because the Democrats are also perverted and they're so sick that they're only getting their pervert to resign because they're trying to make us look bad so who's really in the wrong here. Still you Shaprio. Still you.
I went and checked, and more than one of his followup tweets says or acknowledges that the Democrats do have the moral high ground. I have not disputed this. I have been very critical of the GOP and Moore. By your and Plansix's standard of "whataboutism" you'd be guilty of it for talking so much more about Roy Moore! I have done nothing to excuse the GOP, but I find the fact that you think I did kind of funny in the context of this conversation.
On December 08 2017 03:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:17 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:15 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Perhaps you don't even understand why you felt an instinctive need to insist that this is a both sides issue where the Democrats are just as bad because they're denouncements of sexual abuse are rooted in cynicism. But that's what you were doing. Where have I insisted this is a "both sides issue." Seriously, where are you getting all this? You read into my motivations harder than you do the Democrat politicians! You attack Flake for supporting a democrat because it makes him a bad conservative. You attack the Democrats motives because they can’t be pure. The only person you don’t seem to attack is Moore or Trump. They seem to be pretty cool people for you. Or you claim to not like them, but cheer on their policies because it gets you what you want.
"The only person you don’t seem to attack is Moore or Trump." Now you are just flailing around.
Motives for politicians CAN be pure, but in these instances they clearly are not. But you want to believe people when they do things you like, so you accept it.
On December 08 2017 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:19 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Focusing on the paltry short comings of the Democrats is pretty rich when the GOP is openly supporting a racist child molester for office. And has a man that admitted to sexual assault as its current leader. In all reality, your party would welcome someone like Clinton with open arms if it meant they could get more political power. While the party you are focusing on is attempting divesting itself of people like Clinton. That is the very core of whataboutism. It is an effort to deflect the discussion to literally anything else at all times. You are right, this post right here IS whataboutism. "Yes I knew you were talking only about the Democrats, but I think you are just trying to deflect from Moore, therefore whataboutism." I don’t need to say anything. I called for Frankin to resign after the second account of sexual harassment came out. I have openly talked about the Democrats needing to clean house. I have supported Republicans who stood against Moore. I have happily talked about the short comings of Democrats. I don’t want to win at all costs. I have standards.
We aren't talking about you. or at least not trying to.
|
On December 08 2017 03:11 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:04 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote:On December 08 2017 02:52 Introvert wrote:
Gillibrand was out compaigning with Bill Clinton not that long ago. Then a few weeks ago they were going have an ethics committee look at it (where nothing ever happens). but now that polls show Moore winning again and the magical number of 7 accusers was reached, now we must stand strong!
They obviously get some credit, but not too much. Hilarious. I don't really agree that they get any credit. If you do something for political reasons that happens to be ethical, that's not at all the same as being ethical.Granted, that's certainly better than what the GOP's doing, but I don't look at see a choice between a conman and a murder and think to myself "Man, thank God we have this conman so we don't have to pick the murder. The conman is so ethical by comparison!" This means that there can be no ethics in politics, because doing the right thing might be seen as a positive and therefore politically advantageous. I can’t tell if you are really cynical or just didn’t think that one through to the end. Or maybe the ethical value of one's actions depends on one's intent? Revolutionary stuff I know. Admittedly, it's hard to ascertain one's intent in practice but this discussion began under the explicit assumption from KwarK that the resignation was politically motivated.
Humans are unfortunately not omniscient enough to ethically judge anyone in this way.
|
On December 08 2017 03:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:19 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 03:17 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:15 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans.
How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate?
The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects.
If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken.
Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester".
Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Perhaps you don't even understand why you felt an instinctive need to insist that this is a both sides issue where the Democrats are just as bad because they're denouncements of sexual abuse are rooted in cynicism. But that's what you were doing. Where have I insisted this is a "both sides issue." Seriously, where are you getting all this? You read into my motivations harder than you do the Democrat politicians! Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton Shapiro's tweet which you were here defending was 110% both sides whataboutism. Sure, the Republicans are running a child molester, but don't worry about that because the Democrats are also perverted and they're so sick that they're only getting their pervert to resign because they're trying to make us look bad so who's really in the wrong here. Still you Shaprio. Still you. I went and checked, and more than one of his followup tweets says or acknowledges that the Democrats do have the moral high ground. I have not disputed this. I have been very critical of the GOP and Moore. By your and Plansix's standard of "whataboutism" you'd be guilty of it for talking so much more about Roy Moore! I have done nothing to excuse the GOP, but I find the fact that you think I did kind of funny in the context of this conversation. Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:19 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:17 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:15 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 03:13 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:03 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote:On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans.
How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate?
The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects.
If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken.
Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester".
Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! The point of whataboutism is not never talk about Moore. The purpose is to make sure he never becomes the topic of discussion. As I said before, you really don’t understand the term. People who use the term 'whatbaoutism' reflexively don't understand it. I made a point that a certain Senator from NY (who is being very outspoken on #metoo atm) doesn't actually seem to care unless there is a moment to be seized. That isn't 'whataboutism' ffs. In fact, I haven't brought up Moore or Franken directly. I am talking about the responses to these issues and how this is clearly motivated primarily by politics. Rather than accept that and give the Democrats a little credit for the right course of action (even if not motivation) one must defend their integrity for Heaven only knows what reason. Perhaps you don't even understand why you felt an instinctive need to insist that this is a both sides issue where the Democrats are just as bad because they're denouncements of sexual abuse are rooted in cynicism. But that's what you were doing. Where have I insisted this is a "both sides issue." Seriously, where are you getting all this? You read into my motivations harder than you do the Democrat politicians! You attack Flake for supporting a democrat because it makes him a bad conservative. You attack the Democrats motives because they can’t be pure. The only person you don’t seem to attack is Moore or Trump. They seem to be pretty cool people for you. Or you claim to not like them, but cheer on their policies because it gets you what you want. "The only person you don’t seem to attack is Moore or Trump." Now you are just flailing around. Motives for politicians CAN be pure, but in these instances they clearly are not. But you want to believe people when they do things you like, so you accept it.
Again you focus on the Democrats and claim they can’t have pure intent because humans are complex creatures. No shit. But they are your focus and nothing else. Your own party isn’t a topic you even engage with, except to praise their shitty bills and policies. As long as you get what you want politically, you will accept people like Moore. And call out people showing some real principles, like Jeff Flake.
|
^that's one interesting interpretation of my posting.
Good, can't wait for this.
|
Hopefully at least a couple of these are anti-gay dudes harassing dudes
|
Norway28561 Posts
On December 08 2017 03:28 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 03:11 mozoku wrote:On December 08 2017 03:04 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote:On December 08 2017 02:52 Introvert wrote:
Gillibrand was out compaigning with Bill Clinton not that long ago. Then a few weeks ago they were going have an ethics committee look at it (where nothing ever happens). but now that polls show Moore winning again and the magical number of 7 accusers was reached, now we must stand strong!
They obviously get some credit, but not too much. Hilarious. I don't really agree that they get any credit. If you do something for political reasons that happens to be ethical, that's not at all the same as being ethical.Granted, that's certainly better than what the GOP's doing, but I don't look at see a choice between a conman and a murder and think to myself "Man, thank God we have this conman so we don't have to pick the murder. The conman is so ethical by comparison!" This means that there can be no ethics in politics, because doing the right thing might be seen as a positive and therefore politically advantageous. I can’t tell if you are really cynical or just didn’t think that one through to the end. Or maybe the ethical value of one's actions depends on one's intent? Revolutionary stuff I know. Admittedly, it's hard to ascertain one's intent in practice but this discussion began under the explicit assumption from KwarK that the resignation was politically motivated. Humans are unfortunately not omniscient enough to ethically judge anyone in this way.
That's a better justification for not being judgmental than for passing moral judgment on people based on the consequences of their actions, though.
Intent clearly matters for some 'evaluating morality'- purpose (as futile of an endeavor as that generally is), but it's also much better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than it is to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. And this is the best possible framing for republicans of republicans supporting Moore while democrats distance themselves from Franken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
