Earnest question here for those on here who seems very quick to throw the “Whataboutisim” flag up: What would you have someone do when they sense hypocrisy then? Because effectively saying “Sorry I know you claim that X team did this same thing Y months ago and it wasn’t reacted to in the same way back then but it’s not OK to point it out” doesn’t really hold water for me.
I fully understand that saying a “whataboutisim” does nothing to address the current topic in any conversation, but the ability to point out someone acting in bad faith which brings into question their bias and objectivity I think is very relevant.
When X and Y are not the same, it presents as a weaker argument. Furthermore, many of us (myself included) did oppose the Disinformation Governance Board as too easily corrupted against freedom of speech. That time, it was about getting our arms around foreign influences in social media (still a big problem). This time, it’s about denigrating entire groups of people. Why do you think it’s being done so cruelly?
In general, Whataboutism excuses bad behavior because “well, you didn’t care last time” as if learning and growing is not part of the human experience. It’s also a cheap attempt to make something partisan, and often works in those kinds of environments.
Back to the subject at hand, POTUS can shape government publications in some ways, but that does not mean we have to like it. Others will typically follow their lead, and even if it’s done in good faith
(this isn’t) it’s a slippery slope to suppression of speech (which this is), and encourages future presidents to do the same.
Remember freedom of speech? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Ad Hominem Impetum. Might as well start printing it on our money. E pluribus is no longer unum, and it’s very intentional.
So sure, you can argue however you want, but so can the other guy.
www.forbes.com
