NEWS RIP Beards and thiccbois

[Spekkio]

The problem with whataboutism is that it almost always ignores key details to draw false equivalencies by relying on sensationalist headlines.

In this instance, @Swanee was criticizing the lack of qualifications for a key cabinet member who is writing 'shoot first and ask questions later' policies. Then @Yardstick made a comparison to someone who was extremely qualified, but failed to communicate medical issues to proper channels. Lloyd Austin and his staff committed an error in judgment, which is not the same as someone being way in over their head.

LLoyd Austin also implemented all 8 process improvement recommendations of the independent report after the fact.

 

[FLGUY]

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 when it was rolled out.

In general, Whataboutism excuses bad behavior. Either you agree with suppression of speech or you don’t. I don’t.

POTUS can shape government publications in some ways, but that does not mean we have to like it. Others 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, and encourages future presidents to do the same. Remember freedom of speech? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

So sure, you can argue however you want, but so can the other guy.

I get all that (and I’m not pointing the Whataboutisim finger at anybody on here in particular), but as someone who has a hatred of the current state of partisan politics and the political blinders that said politics puts on most of us, I think we should all strive to be as fair and unbiased as possible at all times.

To me, pointing out instances where someone appears to be acting in bad faith is very appropriate. But to your point, the perception of hypocrisy does not always equate to its existence.

 

[FLGUY]

The problem with whataboutism is that it almost always ignores key details to draw false equivalencies by relying on sensationalist headlines.

In this instance, @Swanee was criticizing the lack of qualifications for a key cabinet member who is writing 'shoot first and ask questions later' policies. Then @Yardstick made a comparison to someone who was extremely qualified, but failed to communicate medical issues to proper channels. Lloyd Austin and his staff committed an error in judgment, which is not the same as someone being way in over their head.

LLoyd Austin also implemented all 8 process improvement recommendations of the independent report after the fact.

Fair, but I don’t believe the two situations being compared need to be the same, when you are simply calling into question if someone has a consistent threshold for when they call out bad behavior or a mistake by the SECDEF.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I get all that (and I’m not pointing the Whataboutisim finger at anybody on here in particular), but as someone who has a hatred of the current state of partisan politics and the political blinders that said politics puts on most of us, I think we should all strive to be as fair and unbiased as possible at all times.

100%. We have become more divided as a nation since the two main parties became nationalized.

To me, pointing out instances where someone appears to be acting in bad faith is very appropriate. But to your point, the perception of hypocrisy doesn’t not always equate to its existence.

Bingo. You said it better than I did.

 

[Spekkio]

Fair, but I don’t believe the two situations being compared need to be the same, when you are simply calling into question if someone has a consistent threshold for when they call out bad behavior or a mistake by the SECDEF.

People who have more credibility tend to get more rope to make mistakes. And for all the hand-wringing about Austin's missteps in communicating his health issues and putting risk mitigators in place, nothing actual tangible came from it. It merely could have. We're a results-oriented society.

The issue with whataboutism is it distracts from the current topic at hand. If I say "I don't like hot dogs" and you retort with "well, what about ham! They both come from pigs! You're a hypocrite!" it's not making an argument about why hot dogs are tasty, nor does it discredit any of the key reasons why someone may not like a hot dog.

 

[taxi1]

Earnest question here for those on here who seem very quick to throw the “Whataboutisim” flag up

It quite literally is a logical fallacy. Used primarily as a diversion, throwing up a Red Herring.

The argument that what your guy did is OK because the other guy did it also suggests you have no moral compass of your own.

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Faded Float Coat]

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.

I like this description. Much of what I see/hear/read in this realm requires a suspension of belief that "we" or "you" did not, in fact, care last time.

 

[FLGUY]

It quite literally is a logical fallacy. Used primarily as a diversion, throwing up a Red Herring.

The argument that what your guy did is OK because the other guy did it also suggests you have no moral compass of your own.

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not excusing the behavior of either SECDEF (in this particular example), nor am I trying to divert attention. Both examples are arguably bad. Without getting into my own personal opinions on this topic, I’m simply shining a light on what others have said, who are saying “if you care this much about a faux pa from Hegseth, did you also care about this other blunder from Austin? Because if your answer is “yes”, then that person has demonstrated intellectual consistency. If the answer is “no” then, well, they arguably haven’t. That’s all I’m saying. Full stop.

 

[sevenhelmet]

But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not excusing the behavior of either SECDEF (in this particular example), nor am I trying to divert attention. Both examples are arguably bad. Without getting into my own personal opinions on this topic, I’m simply shining a light on what others have said, who are saying “if you care this much about a faux pa from Hegseth, did you also care about this other blunder from Austin? Because if your answer is “yes”, then that person has demonstrated intellectual consistency. If the answer is “no” then, well, they arguably haven’t. That’s all I’m saying. Full stop.

How about growth? What if someone agreed with Austin at the time (or at least did not argue), and changed their opinion later based on new information (such as the hamfisted way it was rolled out)? Does that make that person “intellectually inconsistent”?

The key fallacy I see played out over and over in our online world is that if you had opinion X yesterday, your opinion Y today is clearly invalid. There is no room permitted for personal growth, or simply new shit coming to light.

Is it any wonder we have regressed to elementary playground attitudes as a society?

 

[FLGUY]

How about growth? What if someone agreed with Austin at the time (or at least did not argue), and changed their opinion later based on new information (such as the hamfisted way it was rolled out)? Does that make that person “intellectually inconsistent”?

I would say that they are being intellectually consistent in that example, because their original stance was based on information available at the time, and with new information they changed their tune. That’s what we need more of in today’s world.

I may have stated this before, but I think transparency, open communication and healthy dialogue are the antidote to our modern political issues. Building up enough good faith in the opposing political party to where we give people the benefit of the doubt and see their arguments from their perspectives, instead of just assuming the worst possible straw man position and always being snarky jerks to our political opposition.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I would say that they are being intellectually consistent in that example, because their original stance was based on information available at the time, and with new information they changed their tune. That’s what we need more of in today’s world.

I disagree with the moniker. Intellectually consistent could be described as someone who consistently evaluates something based on available information, and updates their evaluation/actions based on new information, exercising intellectual rigor, rather than emotional reaction.

But OK. If you insist, I am happy to be labeled as “intellectually inconsistent” for not stubbornly sticking to opinions I formed as a teen or twentysomething, or even last week.

I will say this for Trump. He is consistent. Therefore my dislike for him has been equally consistent.

 

[FLGUY]

I disagree with the moniker. Intellectually consistent could be described as someone who consistently evaluates something based on available information, and updates their evaluation/actions based on new information, exercising intellectual rigor, rather than emotional reaction.

But OK. If you insist, I am happy to be labeled as “intellectually inconsistent” for not stubbornly sticking to opinions I formed as a teen or twentysomething, or even last week.

I will say this for Trump. He is consistent. Therefore my dislike for him has been equally consistent.

Hold up, did I miss something? I’m not calling you inconsistent. And if I did please point to where I did. I actually agree wholeheartedly with your stance on changing opinions when presented with new information.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Hold up, did I miss something? I’m not calling you inconsistent. And if I did please point to where I did. I actually agree wholeheartedly with your stance on changing opinions when presented with new information.

No, I took nothing personally from your post.

I do disagree with your assertion that someone who originally was OK with Austin’s actions and later changed their mind was being “intellectually inconsistent” (I believe that is what you were saying in your reply, above, quoted below). New information can and should lead to refined or changed opinions.

I would say that they are being intellectually consistent in that example, because their original stance was based on information available at the time, and with new information they changed their tune. That’s what we need more of in today’s world.

I think what you’re saying here is we need more of what you define as intellectual inconsistency in today’s world, which could be misleading, because I think you are defining that term incorrectly. I can see how you may have been making a point about how society negatively views changing opinions, too.

If I’m wrongly interpreting your post, let me know.

 

[Spekkio]

But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not excusing the behavior of either SECDEF (in this particular example), nor am I trying to divert attention. Both examples are arguably bad. Without getting into my own personal opinions on this topic, I’m simply shining a light on what others have said, who are saying “if you care this much about a faux pa from Hegseth, did you also care about this other blunder from Austin? Because if your answer is “yes”, then that person has demonstrated intellectual consistency. If the answer is “no” then, well, they arguably haven’t. That’s all I’m saying. Full stop.

The key difference is that Hegseth is signing policies into effect that actually impact people. And most of his policies are indicative of someone who just believes the hot air he was spouting for his newstainment base despite the fact that SMEs in the beltway are undoubtedly telling him that DoD civilians, beards, DEI programs, and transgendered people are not, in fact, destroying our military's 'lethality.'

LLoyd Austin and his staff made a mistake, but the impact of that mistake was extremely low. And then, like a mature adult, he onboarded a bunch of recommendations to make sure it didn't happen again.

 

[FLGUY]

No, I took nothing personally from your post.

I do disagree with your assertion that someone who originally was OK with Austin’s actions and later changed their mind was being intellectually inconsistent (I believe that is what you were saying in your reply, above, quoted below). New information can and should lead to refined or changed opinions.



I think what you’re saying here is we need more of what you define as intellectual inconsistency in today’s world, which could be misleading, because I think you are defining it incorrectly.

If I’m wrongly interpreting your post, let me know.

No no, I meant the opposite. Someone who changes their opinions when presented with new information is being intellectually consistent. I think more people should reevaluate their previously held beliefs when presented with new information.

The only dog I have in the whataboutisim conversation is hoping that people are fair and reasonable in their critiques. If group X does something and I think “yeah that’s not great, but I don’t really care because it’s done by my team” or if I were to have a muted response due to said tribalistic thinking, yet turn around and have a much more aggressive response when something similar is done by the opposite group, then I think that would be a clear example of bias that we should all try and eliminate.