EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1264
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9219 Posts
On January 30 2020 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote: Do they teach in Europe about how Nazi Germany was actually inspired by US race science and oppression of minorities? That the Nazi's concluded some US race laws were too harsh? Nuremberg Laws were heavily influenced by US citizen and antimiscegenation laws in the US? press.princeton.edu I don't remember hearing anything about that in school and would be surprised if more than a quarter of 18 year olds in Poland knew that there was something like Jim Crow laws in the US. Most people are aware that there was a lot of racism in that period, but I doubt they know anything about how it worked legally. No idea about other countries. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10764 Posts
There are enough "eurocentric" things to know about WW2 whiteout delving into how the ideology was sort of inspired by some american ideas. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23315 Posts
On January 30 2020 17:10 Sent. wrote: I don't remember hearing anything about that in school and would be surprised if more than a quarter of 18 year olds in Poland knew that there was something like Jim Crow laws in the US. Most people are aware that there was a lot of racism in that period, but I doubt they know anything about how it worked legally. No idea about other countries. You think that joke working is contingent on that ignorance? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9219 Posts
Why do you think that joke working could be contingent on that ignorance? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23315 Posts
On January 30 2020 20:24 Sent. wrote: Not sure I understand the question. The joke is that communists used to bring up American racism whenever they ran out of arguments in a dispute, even if that dispute was completely unrelated to how minorities were treated in the US and the USSR. Why do you think that joke working could be contingent on that ignorance? The point of the phrase is akin to the biblical "First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." so it seems to me the premise of the joke is contingent on not being aware of that. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23315 Posts
On January 30 2020 23:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What has that got to do with whataboutism? Understanding that certain phrases are said for the deflection of issues you don't want people to talk about is not that difficult to understand. Whataboutism (as used in the example/west) is basically a rhetorical weapon to silence criticism, the joke is contingent on being ignorant that in the US example it was the US that was deflecting from rampantly racist imperialism by pointing at problems in the USSR, frequently despite being worse themselves. The example I highlighted in particular was how the USSR had to liberate Auschwitz, which was inspired by US policy. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
On January 31 2020 00:27 GreenHorizons wrote: Whataboutism (as used in the example/west) is basically a rhetorical weapon to silence criticism, the joke is contingent on being ignorant that in the US example it was the US that was deflecting from rampantly racist imperialism by pointing at problems in the USSR, frequently despite being worse themselves. The example I highlighted in particular was how the USSR had to liberate Auschwitz, which was inspired by US policy. I have to say it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion while discarding whataboutism completely. You can define any response critizising your the opponent "whataboutism." It always should be related to the subject, though, and endless accusations back and forth about past misdeeds will never be fruitful. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23315 Posts
On January 31 2020 00:41 Slydie wrote: I have to say it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion while discarding whataboutism completely. You can define any response critizising your the opponent "whataboutism." It always should be related to the subject, though, and endless accusations back and forth about past misdeeds will never be fruitful. Begs the questions, which criticisms did the USSR have of the US that weren't considered whataboutisms? Which did the US have of the USSR that were considered whataboutisms? The premise of the joke is the non-satirical belief that the correct answer to those questions is none. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11559 Posts
If you reply to any criticism of "your side" by bringing up criticism of "the other side", that is whataboutism. It is not very important here whether the criticism is valid. Whataboutism is a debate strategy. The goal is to deflect from the problems of your side by pointing out problems of the other side, without actually having to contest or engage with in any way the alleged problem of your side. This is not something that leads to fruitful discussions. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23315 Posts
On January 31 2020 01:50 Simberto wrote: The main idea of whataboutism isn't really linked to the criticism you are bringing up, but is based in the situation and in the way you are bringing it up. If you reply to any criticism of "your side" by bringing up criticism of "the other side", that is whataboutism. It is not very important here whether the criticism is valid. Whataboutism is a debate strategy. The goal is to deflect from the problems of your side by pointing out problems of the other side, without actually having to contest or engage with in any way the alleged problem of your side. This is not something that leads to fruitful discussions. The trick is manipulating people into believing that it is something the other side does, rather than what is being done with the accusation of whataboutism itself as well. I think the example/joke/the ensuing discussion demonstrates the US did it masterfully. There's an element of the prisoners dilemma at play with who "confesses" or decides to defend/address an accusation with anything other than disengaging (staying quiet) or an accusation (snitch) against the other side as well. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15720 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21803 Posts
On January 31 2020 03:11 Mohdoo wrote: NoThe way Brexit is shaking out, it appears the UK voted to decrease their influence and representation. But maybe I am reading biased sources. Has there been anything to come of Brexit where it is a clear win for the UK? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 31 2020 00:27 GreenHorizons wrote: Whataboutism (as used in the example/west) is basically a rhetorical weapon to silence criticism, the joke is contingent on being ignorant that in the US example it was the US that was deflecting from rampantly racist imperialism by pointing at problems in the USSR, frequently despite being worse themselves. The example I highlighted in particular was how the USSR had to liberate Auschwitz, which was inspired by US policy. You seem to have difficulty understand whataboutism and how it relates Sent talking about bringing up French problems when talking about the Polish government undermining the rule of law. It doesn't matter if the phrase used is true or false. We all know the French have regular strikes and their protests. It's has been going on for over a year. It is still a technique we recognise as that of the soviet govenment. It deflects from the criticism of issues which that government don't want talked about. That French police and firefighters are in conflict does not detract from the validity of the criticism of the Polish government undermining the judiciary and the rule of law. It has nothing to do with biblical phrases or prisoners dilemma or whatever unrelated topics you decided to bring up. It's not like you never encountered a discussion on whataboutism before, so it baffles me to why you are pretending to not understand this. On January 31 2020 03:11 Mohdoo wrote: No. But Brexit hasn't happened yet. Remembering a random headline about EU countries will no longer have the rights to fish in UK waters whatever that is. Not really a clear win, as rather obviously UK fishermen will no longer be allowed to fish in "EU waters", but politically, it is how it is spun that matters. The way Brexit is shaking out, it appears the UK voted to decrease their influence and representation. But maybe I am reading biased sources. Has there been anything to come of Brexit where it is a clear win for the UK? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23315 Posts
On January 31 2020 05:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You seem to have difficulty understand whataboutism and how it relates Sent talking about bringing up French problems when talking about the Polish government undermining the rule of law. It doesn't matter if the phrase used is true or false. We all know the French have regular strikes and their protests. It's has been going on for over a year. It is still a technique we recognise as that of the soviet govenment. It deflects from the criticism of issues which that government don't want talked about. That French police and firefighters are in conflict does not detract from the validity of the criticism of the Polish government undermining the judiciary and the rule of law. It has nothing to do with biblical phrases or prisoners dilemma or whatever unrelated topics you decided to bring up. It's not like you never encountered a discussion on whataboutism before, so it baffles me to why you are pretending to not understand this. No. But Brexit hasn't happened yet. Remembering a random headline about EU countries will no longer have the rights to fish in UK waters whatever that is. Not really a clear win, as rather obviously UK fishermen will no longer be allowed to fish in "EU waters", but politically, it is how it is spun that matters. My point is that accusing someone of whataboutism is a whataboutism in that the whole point is to deflect from confronting the criticism. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5629 Posts
On January 31 2020 00:27 GreenHorizons wrote: Whataboutism (as used in the example/west) is basically a rhetorical weapon to silence criticism, the joke is contingent on being ignorant that in the US example it was the US that was deflecting from rampantly racist imperialism by pointing at problems in the USSR, frequently despite being worse themselves. The example I highlighted in particular was how the USSR had to liberate Auschwitz, which was inspired by US policy. How the hell was Auschwitz inspired by US policy? | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On January 31 2020 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote: My point is that accusing someone of whataboutism is a whataboutism in that the whole point is to deflect from confronting the criticism. No, that would not be whataboutism. Whataboutism requires an accusation, implicit or otherwise, of hypocrisy. A false (in your opinion) accusation of whataboutism would be better classified as an appeal to motive: dismissing an argument by claiming the proponent has ulterior motives. | ||
| ||
