turningrite Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 It now seems more attention is being paid to a concept known as 'whataboutism" which is generally portrayed as a comparative stratagem grounded in logical fallacy. Trump has been criticized for comparing American misdeeds to those of Russia, for instance, which some find preposterous. But is it? American 'exceptionalism' has been deployed to justify a lot of abuses over the years. And in a more local context some of our social justice warriors, imbued with a sense of moral outrage and superiority about supposedly ingrained Western traits as racism, colonialism and the like, don't want any water, particularly in the form of inconvenient facts, diluting their whine, so to speak. But doesn't accountability require that inconvenient facts be introduced to counter ideologically based pretensions? Are we reaching the point where debate is no longer possible because some feel empowered to bully, denounce and shout down those who reasonably challenge often weak arguments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 Debate is no longer limited to media or government resources....media content has been democratized and debate quantity is now more important than quality. Conflict drives more clicks than harmony. Arguments are no longer won or lost...faux outrage is in. I blame SNL for starting it...."Jane, you ignorant slut". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted July 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Debate is no longer limited to media or government resources....media content has been democratized and debate quantity is now more important than quality. Conflict drives more clicks than harmony. Arguments are no longer won or lost...faux outrage is in. I blame SNL for starting it...."Jane, you ignorant slut". I actually don't mind the SNL approach because it intends to satirize the abysmal quality of modern discourse. What I really can't stand, though, is self-righteousness. I believe you're in the U.S. so you have access to a broader range of media perspectives than is generally available in Canada, where mainstream media outlets are instinctively mind-numbingly compliant with most aspects of progressivism and political correctness. It often seems like a suffocating blanket has been thrown over the entire society and people aren't permitted to express views that are contrary to the prevailing (elite) mentality. Most people, even when they disagree, just shut up. As my American mother used to note when she was alive, it's the Canadian way. Edited July 23, 2018 by turningrite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 "Whataboutism" can thrive in the modern era of mass communications, social media, search engines, and "yellow" journalism on steroids. "Analysis" and partisan discussions have displaced hard news (who, what, why, when, where). All of these things have more fertile ground in the United States, which started as rebel voices that embraced liberal rights to speech and expression, worth dying for. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is markedly different from "peace, order, and good government". The excesses of American "exceptionalism" will not be suspended or less tolerated just because Trump is president. "Whataboutism" is just as much a history lesson as it is a debating tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 1 hour ago, turningrite said: It often seems like a suffocating blanket has been thrown over the entire society and people aren't permitted to express views that are contrary to the prevailing (elite) mentality. Most people, even when they disagree, just shut up. As my American mother used to note when she was alive, it's the Canadian way. I just have not seen that. Seems to me people say whatever they want, and often ignore facts, evidence and commin sense to do so. Its easy enough to find different media perspectives if you really want to. To suggest you can't look outside of Canada for different perspectives is odd, given our access to the world wide web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted July 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2018 7 hours ago, dialamah said: I just have not seen that. Its easy enough to find different media perspectives if you really want to. To suggest you can't look outside of Canada for different perspectives is odd, given our access to the world wide web. I deleted the one gratuitous sentence in your post. Otherwise, I think you haven't seen what's happening because you're not looking. You've heard of M-103, right? You should read Neil Macdonald's excellent 2017 piece on that little political stratagem, which he notes is part of a broader ongoing effort to manage and restrict speech in this country. (See link below) I never said in my post that we can't seek foreign perspectives. Thank goodness we can do so because I often read British and American news sites. The only problem is that they seldom report on events, trends and controversies in Canada. So I'm stuck with the generally more restrictive Canadian media coverage. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/anti-islamophobia-motion-1.3994374 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 14, 2019 Report Share Posted November 14, 2019 I prefer ‘whataboutery’ for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.