|
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. |
On January 31 2020 13:48 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2020 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 31 2020 05:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 31 2020 00:27 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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:
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? 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. 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.
The last way I'll try explaining my argument is that both parties are constantly criticising each other so whenever they are confronted by arguments from* the other it is automatically whataboutism from their perspective.
For the USSR their position was that they had been pointing out that the US was inspiring Nazis decades before WWII and decades after so the US simply shouldn't be justifying their racist imperialism by pointing at human rights treatment in the USSR (or anywhere else).
I feel like the whole thing unravels if you just try to think of the criticisms from the USSR the US didn't dismiss as whataboutism and deceitful communist propaganda.
|
On January 31 2020 03:11 Mohdoo wrote:
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?
They are about to get rid of Scottland 
|
On January 31 2020 13:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2020 13:48 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 31 2020 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 31 2020 05:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 31 2020 00:27 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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:
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? 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. 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. The last way I'll try explaining my argument is that both parties are constantly criticising each other so whenever they are confronted by arguments from* the other it is automatically whataboutism from their perspective. For the USSR their position was that they had been pointing out that the US was inspiring Nazis decades before WWII and decades after so the US simply shouldn't be justifying their racist imperialism by pointing at human rights treatment in the USSR (or anywhere else). I feel like the whole thing unravels if you just try to think of the criticisms from the USSR the US didn't dismiss as whataboutism and deceitful communist propaganda. You still don't understand do you? It has nothing to do with bible phrases or prisoner's dilemma or justification. It's not hard to understand. The Soviets did not care about what USA may or may not be doing, it cares to be deflecting criticism on itself. The Polish government supporters doesn't care about France, it only wants to deflect criticism from the EU that it is undermining the rule of law.
If someone wants to talk about an issue, to engage in whataboutism is to deflect in criticism from that issue. If I want to talk about Brexit, it doesn't matter if there are protests in Hong Kong. If I want to talk about poverty in UK, it doesn't matter if other countries have far worse poverty problems. If I want to talk about the declining state of the NHS, it doesn't matter that USA doesn't have a proper social health system. If I want to talk about EU system of governance, it doesn't matter that Russia's parliament is a complete sham.
|
On January 31 2020 21:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2020 13:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 31 2020 13:48 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 31 2020 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 31 2020 05:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 31 2020 00:27 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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:
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? 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. 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. The last way I'll try explaining my argument is that both parties are constantly criticising each other so whenever they are confronted by arguments from* the other it is automatically whataboutism from their perspective. For the USSR their position was that they had been pointing out that the US was inspiring Nazis decades before WWII and decades after so the US simply shouldn't be justifying their racist imperialism by pointing at human rights treatment in the USSR (or anywhere else). I feel like the whole thing unravels if you just try to think of the criticisms from the USSR the US didn't dismiss as whataboutism and deceitful communist propaganda. You still don't understand do you? It's not hard to understand. The Soviets did not care about what USA may be doing, it cares to be deflecting criticism on itself. The Polish government supporters doesn't care about France, it only wants to deflect criticism from the EU that it is undermining the rule of law.
I understand perfectly. I don't appreciate the humor because of the poorly constructed premise (among other aspects).
|
What are you talking about GH? What's this your talk about humour? You don't seem to understand because you continue to propose alternative and incorrect arguments to what Sent was talking about.
|
Yeah, I actually scanned the last 2-3 pages now several times and still don't get what the "Humour" was. Some clarification would be apreciated.
|
It's explained in the wikipedia article that unintentionally started all of this. Apparently some wikipedia people had problems understanding it too.
Here's the first of the million variatons of the joke I found with google:
An American citizen calls the Soviet radio station and asks:
- Can an ordinary Soviet engineer afford to buy a car?
After a long silent pause the radio station answers:
- Mmm… and what about you lynching Blacks?
Most (all?) Warsaw pact countries have their versions of the joke. Maybe you need to be from a post-communist country to get it?
During a trip to Washington, D.C., in 1999, then-prime minister of Russia Sergei Stepashin attempted to tell a joke using the phrase as a punchline at a speech before the National Press Club.[49] He faced a disturbing quiet from the audience in response to his attempt at humor, and he later observed those in the U.S. have difficulty understanding the Russian perspective on comedy.[49]
Damn Soviets, they cursed us with jokes nobody else can understand! Thanks Obama Stalin.
|
No. I got all that. What i'm not understanding is GH's issue with it in the context of what was discussed here. I also wouldn't call it humour.
|
On February 01 2020 02:33 Velr wrote:
No. I got all that. What i'm not understanding is GH's issue with it in the context of what was discussed here. I also wouldn't call it humour.
Sent said:
I said I don't appreciate the humor because of the poorly constructed premise (among other aspects). Can't help ya if you still don't understand that.
|
Ah, nah. I just hoped there was more behind it. But I should have known better.
|
Claiming that Auschwitz and consequently the Shoah was inspired by US policy is deeply, deeply problematic and ignorant. Now if you aim to analyze the historical development of racist laws with the intent to discriminate and segregate drawing a link between the jim crow laws and the nuremberg laws is important and this topic should appear in textbooks.
The Shoah itself though is singular in its organized barbarity and entirely a product of the German people and a German government. Muddying the waters like that is coming dangerously close to historic revisionism
|
On February 01 2020 06:22 rope123 wrote:
Claiming that Auschwitz and consequently the Shoah was inspired by US policy is deeply, deeply problematic and ignorant. Now if you aim to analyze the historical development of racist laws with the intent to discriminate and segregate drawing a link between the jim crow laws and the nuremberg laws is important and this topic should appear in textbooks.
The Shoah itself though is singular in its organized barbarity and entirely a product of the German people and a German government. Muddying the waters like that is coming dangerously close to historic revisionism
I disagree, if for no other reasons than we develop ideas and understandings with influence from outside of our borders (even under the most strict regimes). Not going to get into it unless everyone wants me to though, so there are no complaints that it is being discussed.
|
Its the same historic revisionism that you reject when people point to the great leap forward and the Holodomor was inspired by socialism and communism and everything downriver from those ideologies are permanently tainted from it.
At the endpoint, It justifies Israel as something America must defend as penitence for the holocaust.
|
So as UK is officially out. Any immidiate impact (say on travles in or out of UK for European citizens) or we are still covered by some temporary agreement?
|
almost all of EU special things are still in effect till end of 2020 I think
2021 is the real end
|
On February 01 2020 20:54 Silvanel wrote:
So as UK is officially out. Any immidiate impact (say on travles in or out of UK for European citizens) or we are still covered by some temporary agreement? No change yet, we are still covered by the withdraw agreement which lasts until the end of 2020. (with possibility to extend it till June).
|
Well, they are not participating in our commission meetings anymore, we have national orders to delete the from Mailing lists etc.
So yes, on a legislative and executive level there is obviously an impact. Which includes ongoing admissioning processes of all sorts of things which are now cancelled.
|
|
|
Yeah i know that, i meant more like changes to buisnesses or general population.
|
On February 02 2020 03:08 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i know that, i meant more like changes to buisnesses or general population.
For holiday/business travel? No. Not until the end of 2020. After that, who knows.
For long term stay? Maybe. For import/export, finance, etc: nothing is changing til the end of 2020, after that, who knows. Which means that things might start changing sooner as businesses adapt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
