Ουκρανία

[konig]

Το μετράμε από τις σταυροφορίες και μετά ή ποιο πίσω?

απο το πρωτο false flag στο βιετναμ

[techn]

[Hetfield]

ποσα εκκ ανθρωπους εχει σκοτωσει ειπαμε αυτος ο δυτικος τροπος ζωης?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatab...al_motivations

The philosopher Merold Westphal said that only people who know themselves to be guilty of something "can find comfort in finding others to be just as bad or worse."[59] Whataboutery, as practiced by both parties in The Troubles in Northern Ireland to highlight what the other side had done to them, was "one of the commonest forms of evasion of personal moral responsibility," according to Bishop (later Cardinal) Cahal Daly.[60] After a political shooting at a baseball game in 2017, journalist Chuck Todd criticized the tenor of political debate, commenting, "What-about-ism is among the worst instincts of partisans on both sides."[61][62]

Βρειτε τουλαχιστον τα κακαλα να πειτε οτι γουσταρετε Πουτιν.
Αν και πολυ αμφιβαλλω αν θα γουσταρατε τοσο τις μεθοδους του αν εφαρμοζοντουσαν πανω σας

[PopManiac]

Τι έγινε ο ψευτοΤσάρος προ ολίγου ανακήρυξε το Donbas ως μέρος της Νέας Ρωσίας;

Ξαναλέω στους εδώ πιστούς του καθεστώτος ο ηγέτης σας μια χαρά τα λέει και τα κάνει, εσείς προσπαθείτε να βάλετε λόγια στο στόμα του...

[famous-walker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatab...al_motivations

Αφου σου αρεσει τοσο η wikipedia.

Contextualization

Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. In international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood and deserves to be recognized as such.[7]
Distorted self-perception

Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy. For example, one's opponent's action appears as forbidden torture, one's own actions as "enhanced interrogation methods", the other's violence as aggression, one's own merely as a reaction. Christensen even sees utility in the use of the argument: "The so-called 'whataboutists' question what has not been questioned before and bring contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy to light. This is not naïve justification or rationalization [...], it is a challenge to think critically about the (sometimes painful) truth of our position in the world."[93][94]
Lack of sincerity

In his analysis of Whataboutism, logic professor Axel Barceló of the UNAM concludes that the counteraccusation often expresses a justified suspicion that the criticism does not correspond to the critic's real position and reasons.[95]

Abe Greenwald pointed out that even the first accusation leading to the counteraccusation is an arbitrary setting, which can be just as one-sided and biased, or even more one-sided than the counter-question "what about?" Thus, whataboutism could also be enlightening and put the first accusation in perspective.[96]
Idealization

In her analysis of whataboutism in the US Presidential Campaign, Catherine Putz notes in 2016 in The Diplomat Magazine that the core problem is that this rhetorical device precludes discussion of a country's contentious issues (e.g., civil rights on the part of the United States) if that country is not perfect in that area. It required, by default, that a country be allowed to make a case to other countries only for those ideals in which it had achieved the highest level of perfection. The problem with ideals, he said, is that we rarely achieve them as human beings. But the ideals remain important, he said, and the United States should continue to advocate for them: "It is the message that is important, not the ambassador."[97]
Protective mechanism

Gina Schad sees the characterization of counterarguments as "whataboutism" as a lack of communicative competence, insofar as discussions are cut off by this accusation. The accusation of others of whataboutism is also used as an ideological protective mechanism that leads to "closures and echo chambers".[98] The reference to "whataboutism" is also perceived as a "discussion stopper" "to secure a certain hegemony of discourse and interpretation."[99]
Deflection

A number of commentators, among them Forbes columnist Mark Adomanis, have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that accusations of whataboutism have been used to simply deflect criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies.[100] Vincent Bevins and Alex Lo argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard,[101][102] and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.[103]

Left-wing academics Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon argue that mentioning the possible existence of victims of capitalism in popular discourse is often dismissed as "whataboutism", which they describe as "a term implying that only atrocities perpetrated by communists merit attention." They also argue that such accusations of "whataboutism" are invalid as the same arguments used against communism can also be used against capitalism.[104]

Scholars Ivan Franceschini and Nicholas Loubere argue it is not whataboutism to document and denounce authoritarianism in different countries, and noted global parallels such as the role Islamophobia played in China's Xinjiang internment camps and the US's War on terror and travel bans targeting Muslim countries, as well as influence of corporations and other international actors in the documented abuses which is becoming more obscured. Franceschini and Loubere conclude that authoritarianism "must be opposed everywhere", and that "only by finding the critical parallels, linkages, and complicities can we develop immunity to the virus of whataboutism and avoid its essentialist hyperactive immune response, achieving the moral consistency and holistic perspective that we need in order to build up international solidarity and stop sleepwalking towards the abyss."[105]

[Crosswind]

Περίεργη λίστα. Πού είναι τα 6 μύρια Ινδών που λιμοκτόνησαν επειδή οι Αγγλοι σήκωσαν ό,τι φαγώσιμο υπήρχε επί great famine? Ή τα 2 μύρια βιετναμέζων civilians? Ή τα 30 μύρια κινέζων επί ιαπωνικής κατοχής?

[BlueChris]

Περίεργη λίστα. Πού είναι τα 6 μύρια Ινδών που λιμοκτόνησαν επειδή οι Αγγλοι σήκωσαν ό,τι φαγώσιμο υπήρχε επί great famine? Ή τα 2 μύρια βιετναμέζων civilians? Ή τα 30 μύρια κινέζων επί ιαπωνικής κατοχής?

Η λίστα έχει εκτός τη σωστή πλευρά πάντα...

[famous-walker]

Δεν εχουν ολοι οι ανθρωποι την ιδια αξια.

[konig]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatab...al_motivations


Βρειτε τουλαχιστον τα κακαλα να πειτε οτι γουσταρετε Πουτιν.
Αν και πολυ αμφιβαλλω αν θα γουσταρατε τοσο τις μεθοδους του αν εφαρμοζοντουσαν πανω σας

λογικο το βλεπω να μην απαντας

[paradox21]

Αφού ξεκινάς από το 1800,για την γενοκτονία των Ινδιάνων από Ευρωπαίους αποικιοκράτες και αποίκους της Αμερικανικής, θα πεις, η προσβάλει την καταγωγή σου?

[MNP-10]

https://twitter.com/Crusaiderpatri1/...2321874685989?

[Basilhs23_]

Και αρκετοί άλλοι, Πολ Ποτ, ΠαπαΝτοκ.

[Hetfield]

Αφου σου αρεσει τοσο η wikipedia.

Αρα τι μας λες;
Οτι επειδη δεν σου αρεσει η δυση για τους χ,ψ λογους στηριζεις Πουτιν τι κι αν χ*100, ψ*100 λογοι. Στην επιστημη αυτο ονομαζεται ψυχικη διαταραχη.

[famous-walker]

Αρα τι μας λες;
Οτι επειδη δεν σου αρεσει η δυση για τους χ,ψ λογους στηριζεις Πουτιν τι κι αν χ*100, ψ*100 λογοι. Στην επιστημη αυτο ονομαζεται ψυχικη διαταραχη.

Αρα, αυτοι που επικαλουνται συνεχως το whataboutism 99 στις 100 το κανουν εκ του πονηρου γιατι δεν θελουν η δεν μπορουν να αντικρουσουν με επιχειρηματα τον λογο για τον οποιο φαινεται να εχουν δυο μετρα και δυο σταθμα.

Στην δικια σου περιπτωση βεβαια ειναι ξεκαθαρα αυτο που βαζω στο μπολντ:

Gina Schad sees the characterization of counterarguments as "whataboutism" as a lack of communicative competence, insofar as discussions are cut off by this accusation. The accusation of others of whataboutism is also used as an ideological protective mechanism that leads to "closures and echo chambers".[98] The reference to "whataboutism" is also perceived as a "discussion stopper" "to secure a certain hegemony of discourse and interpretation."[99]

Σου λειπουν βασικες δεξιοτητες επικοινωνιας. Ετσι εξηγουνται και οι προσωπικες επιθεσεις και προσωπικοι χαρακτηρισμοι στους οποιους καταφευγεις μονιμως. Απλα δεν εισαι για κατι παραπανω.

[BlueChris]

Ωραίο άρθρο για ενα τομέα που δεν τον ήξερα μέχρι τώρα που αφορά το γεωργικό τομέα και το ξεπούλημα από το 2014 και μετά.
Σας θυμίζει κάτι? Ουκρανία 2.0 μηπως?

https://www.tanea.gr/2024/03/17/worl...rafi-zelenski/