• Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The first commenter is talking a hypothetical scenario of socialism being bad, so the second commenter (the one you responded to) responded with actual example of that same hypothetical scenario happening, but except by a capitalist power (the US). I don’t think your response makes sense at all here.

      • Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        37
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, his response is calling out the whataboutism fallacy. The US doing something bad does not in any way, shape, or form make socialism any less shitty. It’s poking fun at the delusional people who still think it’s a good ideology despite the overwhelming evidence.

        • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Calling something “Whataboutism” infers a belief in American exceptionalism. You should question that belief.

          • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Calling out whataboutism is perfectly acceptable when it is being used regardless of its origins.

            It is in no way a logical fallacy and in fact the use of whataboutism is itself a logical fallacy.

            The flaw in gorilladrum’s argument is that the hypothetical example demonstrates the flaws in that specific situation and does not address problems in socialism as a whole yet they suggest it dismisses the ideology completely.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People cry whataboutism when they dislike people throwing context that goes against their argument into a discussion.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s literally whataboutism, I criticized people using the vocabulary of “whataboutism” and then you said “but whatabout people who are doing whataboutism!”

                  To be clear, I dont believe whataboutism is a fallacy, but you do, so why are you doing it?

                  • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s funny liberals had to start calling it “Whataboutism” as the previous term made it clear they were racist.

                  • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No it isn’t. I am explaining why whataboutism is a fallacy itself. If you have a valid counterpoint to a claim there would be no need to engage with whataboutism.

                    I am not engaging in whataboutism but based on your view that it isn’t fallacious Im not sure you will understand that. Not everyone is good at logical processing.