There are some paranoid levels of thinking in some of that stuff. Like when a person thinks someone is a “x foreign country spy” because they disagree. It’s possible for people to break out of that mode of thinking, but when they are in that mode, it’s next to impossible to get through because everything you say that is in disagreement is “because you are trying to deceive them.”
Liberals claiming someone is doing whataboutism seems like a component of this thinking, with a belief that the one doing the “whataboutism” is attempting to deceive. But although it’s (probably? I haven’t analyzed it in enough depth to say with certainty) possible for someone to deceive in that way, it’s also possible to compare two things for a variety of rhetorical purposes that have nothing to do with dishonesty. Such as pointing out the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world if someone tries to say x foreign country is “authoritarian” in contrast to the US being “free”; that’s not whataboutism, it’s a factual point that undermines the narrative of the US having some kind of greater moral standing from which it can properly judge other countries.
If anything, I would say imperialists, liberals, tend to be more engaged in actual whataboutism, even if unconsciously. Like if you try to point out something fundamentally wrong with the US, claiming that alternatives are way worse. Which in that regard also seems to be in bed with doomerism (or more formally maybe, capitalist realism).
Oh yeah I’ve noticed that as well, it’s absolutely inconceivable for these people that somebody could genuinely disagree with them. If you have a contrary opinion that must be because you have some secret agenda. It’s kind of funny to unpack to be honest because what are they even saying there. When they say you’re shilling for the see see pee or whatever, they’re still acknowledging that you ultimately prefer that system. Yet, according to them, your view should be dismissed because anything that’s not western liberalism is somehow evil.
The whole whataboutism thing is fundamentally a logical fallacy. It’s basically a rhetorical device to create a double moral standard for yourself and your adversaries. Why should others be held to a higher standard than one holds themselves, it doesn’t make any sense.
I think when they say people “shill for the ccp” what they mean is “you accept payment from this evil bad country in order to lie for them.”
It’s a moral statement. It both dismisses the argument from the “ccp shill” while also reinforcing the idea that the west alone cares about morality at all. It is such a common argument because it doesn’t just allow someone to ignore their opponent, but also soothes them, insisting that they are on the “right side of history” and the only people who disagree with them are cartoonishly evil, doing things they know are wrong just for the money.
Absolutely, it’s the highest stage of cope where they insist that nobody could possibly genuinely believe what you’re saying, so you’re just reading a script because you’re paid to do so.
I think it goes back to things we’ve talked about before, with libs insisting that those “other countries” are worse in every way. Their worldview involves following a script, so tankies must really follow a script, extra, extra hard.
(Also, damn you are popular today, you keep getting a ton of likes on everything. I’ll hit refresh and a comment will go from 5 or so to over 20.)
I think it’s because the programming cuts off the ability to see that the programming isn’t actual education nor does it encourage thought, but quite the opposite. So if someone disagrees it’s because they have different programming and that is the only explanation. It’s all brainless knee-jerk reaction.
Oh yeah I agree, it comes down to thermodynamics in the end. We all hold a graph of ideas in our heads, and no single fact exists in a vacuum. So, when we’re presented with a new idea that doesn’t fit with the existing graph, we either have to rebuild the whole graph of concepts that are associated with it, or just discard the conflicting idea. Unless there’s a good reason to spend the energy doing the hard task the brain goes with the easy solution of just ignoring the information that doesn’t fit what we already believe.
This is why change tends to only happen when material conditions start collapsing, because that’s the point where it’s too costly for people to continue ignoring alternate ideas. They’re forced to recognize that their world model is divergent from their actual experience, and need recalibrating.
There are some paranoid levels of thinking in some of that stuff. Like when a person thinks someone is a “x foreign country spy” because they disagree. It’s possible for people to break out of that mode of thinking, but when they are in that mode, it’s next to impossible to get through because everything you say that is in disagreement is “because you are trying to deceive them.”
Liberals claiming someone is doing whataboutism seems like a component of this thinking, with a belief that the one doing the “whataboutism” is attempting to deceive. But although it’s (probably? I haven’t analyzed it in enough depth to say with certainty) possible for someone to deceive in that way, it’s also possible to compare two things for a variety of rhetorical purposes that have nothing to do with dishonesty. Such as pointing out the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world if someone tries to say x foreign country is “authoritarian” in contrast to the US being “free”; that’s not whataboutism, it’s a factual point that undermines the narrative of the US having some kind of greater moral standing from which it can properly judge other countries.
If anything, I would say imperialists, liberals, tend to be more engaged in actual whataboutism, even if unconsciously. Like if you try to point out something fundamentally wrong with the US, claiming that alternatives are way worse. Which in that regard also seems to be in bed with doomerism (or more formally maybe, capitalist realism).
Oh yeah I’ve noticed that as well, it’s absolutely inconceivable for these people that somebody could genuinely disagree with them. If you have a contrary opinion that must be because you have some secret agenda. It’s kind of funny to unpack to be honest because what are they even saying there. When they say you’re shilling for the see see pee or whatever, they’re still acknowledging that you ultimately prefer that system. Yet, according to them, your view should be dismissed because anything that’s not western liberalism is somehow evil.
The whole whataboutism thing is fundamentally a logical fallacy. It’s basically a rhetorical device to create a double moral standard for yourself and your adversaries. Why should others be held to a higher standard than one holds themselves, it doesn’t make any sense.
I think when they say people “shill for the ccp” what they mean is “you accept payment from this evil bad country in order to lie for them.”
It’s a moral statement. It both dismisses the argument from the “ccp shill” while also reinforcing the idea that the west alone cares about morality at all. It is such a common argument because it doesn’t just allow someone to ignore their opponent, but also soothes them, insisting that they are on the “right side of history” and the only people who disagree with them are cartoonishly evil, doing things they know are wrong just for the money.
Absolutely, it’s the highest stage of cope where they insist that nobody could possibly genuinely believe what you’re saying, so you’re just reading a script because you’re paid to do so.
I think it goes back to things we’ve talked about before, with libs insisting that those “other countries” are worse in every way. Their worldview involves following a script, so tankies must really follow a script, extra, extra hard.
(Also, damn you are popular today, you keep getting a ton of likes on everything. I’ll hit refresh and a comment will go from 5 or so to over 20.)
Completely agree, and yeah dunno what’s with so many upvotes today. Don’t think I’ve said anything profound. :)
I think it’s because the programming cuts off the ability to see that the programming isn’t actual education nor does it encourage thought, but quite the opposite. So if someone disagrees it’s because they have different programming and that is the only explanation. It’s all brainless knee-jerk reaction.
Oh yeah I agree, it comes down to thermodynamics in the end. We all hold a graph of ideas in our heads, and no single fact exists in a vacuum. So, when we’re presented with a new idea that doesn’t fit with the existing graph, we either have to rebuild the whole graph of concepts that are associated with it, or just discard the conflicting idea. Unless there’s a good reason to spend the energy doing the hard task the brain goes with the easy solution of just ignoring the information that doesn’t fit what we already believe.
This is why change tends to only happen when material conditions start collapsing, because that’s the point where it’s too costly for people to continue ignoring alternate ideas. They’re forced to recognize that their world model is divergent from their actual experience, and need recalibrating.