• eldavi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    this is the most appropriate “both sides” argument i’ve ever seen.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      “Both sides” is when you equivocate two things which are not equal, you’re looking for “whataboutism” which is not an actual fallacy, claiming “you’re doing whataboutism” was a PR tactic first used by British colonizers when Irish people brought up British violence in response to anti-IRA propaganda.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        it get that they’re both bad faith ways to shut down discourse and i can see how whataboutism fits; but i was referring to the false equivalency placed between the nato’s atrocities and that of the soviet union’s in the comment

        when it’s “both sides” is brought up to shutdown arguments that the democrats have done some of the same things that the republicans did; they’re likewise implying that the democrats have fewer of such incidents than the republicans and therefore the argument is invalid.

        this was my half snarky way of saying that this comment is a “both sides” example can be applied in the opposite direction where it neuters the effect that “both sides” has with liberals.

      • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        I would submit that sometimes “whataboutism” can be related to the issue of topicality in a debate, though. If not addressed properly topicality issues will inevitably derail a discussion as is their nature.