Dressed him to look like a regular working class youngster?
Had his hair cut?
Fucking listen to yourselves FFS
Don't want to link to this knobhead's Twitter account so here's one of his later Tweets...
"Just for the avoidance of all doubt and to avoid any speculative litigation. I got the BBC producer wrong and the young man's name wrong. He may also have arranged his own haircut but I still think he is a fox hunter. But that is perhaps also not correct. Thank you. X"
Also, he's def not got an agenda. Profile pic of him(?) meeting Blair and claims he's a Guardian contributor.
Yeah read his correction, the daft ****.
Unlike him I will delete the post as it is incorrect
He's now threatening to take legal action against all those who have called him a liar.
This despite him being a liar :-D
Yep. Lowest form of argument in many ways. Eye for an eye and the world would be blind etc.
I tend to agreeJesus christ it doesn't matter! None of them should be doing it! What is it with everyone and whataboutism these days?!
The correct response to that tweet isn't "Well someone else is doing it too", it's "That's wrong, and they shouldn't be doing it". If it's proven Labour are doing the same thing, ditto, or Lib Dems, or the Monster Raving Loony party. Anyone.
Because whataboutism is meant to highlight people's hypocrisy.Jesus christ it doesn't matter! None of them should be doing it! What is it with everyone and whataboutism these days?!
The correct response to that tweet isn't "Well someone else is doing it too", it's "That's wrong, and they shouldn't be doing it". If it's proven Labour are doing the same thing, ditto, or Lib Dems, or the Monster Raving Loony party. Anyone.
Because whataboutism is meant to highlight people's hypocrisy.
Think of it from another point of view;
"ooh look at what this person who i'm politically opposed to is doing! Isn't that awful, therefore making them awful and any act supporting them also awful"
"Well what about the person YOU support? They have also done the same as the one you are politically opposed to, and criticise, yet you have not criticised your own supported individual or aired such outrage, previously. Are you not equally as awful for supporting something that has done exactly what you are now being critical about?
"Oooh, what is this whataboutism!?!"
"Whataboutism" these days is about raising awareness of the hypocrisy of individuals who try and use shaming as an argument to oppose something and convince others, when they turned a blind eye to their own sides actions. If both actions are bad, and both opposing individuals in question have been found guilty of doing it, why would that OP be outraged in one instance but not the other?
People are now seeing through this sort of rhetoric as a "shame tactic"; do not support them on this basis because this act is considered heinous. If someone points out to you that a group/persons you support has done the exact same thing, then the initial outrage loses all validity on the grounds of bias.
Analogy time.Earlier today I posted to say that Trump is a fucking disgrace to interfere with our election and one leave voter replied with a picture of Obama, referencing him commenting on the referendum.
He didn’t have a clue what my opinion was/is on that which happened 3 and a 1/2 years ago. I actually completely disagreed with it and I think it resulted in more leave votes as the British are stubborn fuckers.
Obama overstepped the mark but Trump is actually doing worse here.
Whataboutism is a terrible form of argument and it’s the lowest form.
Analogy time.
United fan; "I hate teams that spend loads of money on players, like City and Chelsea, trying to buy success"
City fan; "What about Man Utd and their recent multi-million spending?"
United fan (realising his own hypocrisy on the subject); "....fucking 'whataboutism'!"
Now before you might begin, i'm not commenting or saying you are or have been hypocritical. That's not my argument.
I'm defending the use of whataboutism in debate. If most people cannot defend against or argue around the raised "whataboutism", the issue lies with the individual and maybe that their original point wasn't as strong as they thought it was.
It's more of a salient point; why is the Utd fan not addressing the fact his own club acts the same way as the ones he's criticising, and more to the point why would he use it in an effort to portray those institutions he has a bias against, in order to influence others to join him in his condemnation of those clubs, whilst dodging criticism of his own?Does that sound like a decent argument to you?
It's more of a salient point; why is the Utd fan not addressing the fact his own club acts the same way as the ones he's criticising, and more to the point why would he use it in an effort to portray those institutions he has a bias against, in order to influence others to join him in his condemnation of those clubs, whilst dodging criticism of his own?
If your arguement is being used on those premises, only to find it is weak to begin with, don't defend using it. That is precisely what "whataboutism", when used properly, probes to expose. The weakness of an argument based upon someone's bias and hypocrisy. It can easily be argued that the act of spending money on players to gain an advantage is a heinous one, and that in this instance the Utd fan is calling that ALL clubs who do it, including his own, should be be brought into question.But he's not, he's using it to bring others onto his side of the argument, ignoring the actions of his own club and getting riled when this hypocrisy is brought into light.
Rarely however, in these shouts of "whataboutism", is that the case.
WHich doesn't mean that "whataboutism" itself is inherently a poor debate method, merely it is down to individuals and how they apply it, which is my point.There’s a fine line with pointing out hypocrisy and whataboutism and that is all about context.
WHich doesn't mean that "whataboutism" itself is inherently a poor debate method, merely it is down to individuals and how they apply it, which is my point.
Case in point; Jo Swinson.
I already said, I wasn't raising a point about what you said to someone else, i'm of no opinion on that matter, i'm merely challenging the premise that a few raised that whataboutery is the lowest form of debate. I don't think it is.No but I mean there is a difference. You pointing that out to a Utd fan then that’s you highlighting hypocrisy, if I question Johnson’s lies and someone says what about Corbyn’s lies then that’s whataboutism, as they don’t even know if I’m voting Labour.
Anyway it’s a small point and something I’m not that arsed about arguing for all night.
I already said, I wasn't raising a point about what you said to someone else, i'm of no opinion on that matter, i'm merely challenging the premise that a few raised that whataboutery is the lowest form of debate. I don't think it is.
So if someone makes a hypocritical/short-sighted comment, we're not meant to highlight/question it?I think many of us are guilty of whataboutery to some extent, but if it’s your immediate response to any criticism of your political party/football team or whatever then it suggests a lack of critical thinking. It’s lazy deflection tactics.