Why not Vote for Roy Moore?

[ElvisL1ves]

The fallacy of equivocation.

It’s called whataboutism because that’s what it is. If you’re tired of hearing about it, stop doing it.

[John_Mace]

@Sam_Stone

You know, that stupid ‘Whataboutism’ thing was old the first time it was used. It’s an obvious attempt to continue attacking people on one side of the fence, while deflecting attacks on your own side by the same criterion.

The next time a Democrat gets caught doing something and Democrats start pointing out Republicans doing the same thing with apparent impugnity, that ‘Whataboutism’ hashtag will vanish down the memory hole so fast you’ll forget it ever existed.

Yes, it’s easily overused. It’s rapidly replacing “normalizing” as the buzzword of the day.

It’s sort of like how, on this MB, pointing out liberal hypocrisy gets the poster mocked, but pointing out conservative hypocrisy is applauded or accepted without comment. (Probably not 100% of the time, but more often than not.)

[Sam_Stone]

Yup.

[HurricaneDitka]

@John_Mace

Yes, it’s easily overused. It’s rapidly replacing “normalizing” as the buzzword of the day.

It’s sort of like how, on this MB, pointing out liberal hypocrisy gets the poster mocked, but pointing out conservative hypocrisy is applauded or accepted without comment. (Probably not 100% of the time, but more often than not.)

Pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing out the hypocrisy, that’s awesome. You win the Internet for today.

[GIGObuster]

@ElvisL1ves

The fallacy of equivocation.

It’s called whataboutism because that’s what it is. If you’re tired of hearing about it, stop doing it.

Yup.

@John Oliver

Now this technique of saying “what about” is actually an old Soviet propaganda tool and the reason it is dangerous is but it’s because it implies that all actions, regardless of context, share a moral equivalency and since nobody is perfect, ‘all criticism is hypocritical and everybody should do whatever they want’.

It is a depressingly effective tool, which is why on trump’s favorite network you hear it all the time. [FOX NEWS]

“the mainstream media focused on the Trump campaign and allegations of collusion with the Russians but what about the Democrats possible ties to Moscow?”

“Former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn investigated for his private meeting with Russia but what about Hillary Clinton?”

“the media wants to call into question the credibility and the trustworthiness of this administration but what about Benghazi? What about the blatant lies that the Obama administration told us? What about the fact that Ben Rhodes bragged about lying to the media and the public about the Iran deal…”

Okay, stop, stop. Because here is the thing: none of the errors those people may have made in the past excuses the Trump administration’s actions.

A defense attorney could not stand up in court and say: “maybe my client did murder those people but I ask you this: what about Jeffrey Dahmer? What about Al Capone? What about the guy from The Silence of the Lambs? I rest my case here people, I rest my case.”

It doesn’t actually solve a problem or win an argument; the point is just to muddy the waters which can make the other side mad and that actually brings us to Trump’s third technique: trolling.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@QuickSilver

If not for the charges of child molestation, he’d have won running on a platform of bigotry and statements wishing he could repeal all amendments of the constitution beyond the first ten. That’s a position advocating the repeal of abolition of slavery, civil rights, women’s rights, term limits, etc…

Actually, it wasn’t decisive – the majority of the voters stated that they had already made their mind up on their vote before the molestation charges became public.

The main difference in this election was turnout.
Black voters turned out in record numbers – more even than turned out to vote for Obama. (And almost all voted for Jones – I’m surprised Moore even got 6% of black votes.) And given Alabama’s voter registration roadblocks, they had to start working on getting registered before this molestation scandal erupted. Republican turnout was down in certain areas, and that is possibly due to the scandal. But it’s hard to tell – turnout is usually down in special elections. Democrats just managed to work against that this time.

[DrDeth]

@ElvisL1ves

The fallacy of equivocation.

It’s called whataboutism because that’s what it is. If you’re tired of hearing about it, stop doing it.

Yep. Look Sam, just start your own thread about terrible horrible Democrats, that’s fine.

[Sam_Stone]

Hey, I was responding to a question someone else asked. Don`t like the answer? Don’t ask the question.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Sam_Stone

You know, that stupid ‘Whataboutism’ thing was old the first time it was used. It’s an obvious attempt to continue attacking people on one side of the fence, while deflecting attacks on your own side by the same criterion.

The next time a Democrat gets caught doing something and Democrats start pointing out Republicans doing the same thing with apparent impugnity, that ‘Whataboutism’ hashtag will vanish down the memory hole so fast you’ll forget it ever existed.

In normal times, with individuals using this tactic, you might have a case. We do not live in normal times.

Instead, whenever the Republican president is legitimately criticized for an action, which seems to happen an unprecedented number of times a day, he immediately tweets or expounds an attack (true, partially true, false, a complete lie) that is always irrelevant and always on one of his enemies - Democrats, liberals, women, the press, Democratic liberal women - for doing exactly what he was criticized for, in an epic display of Whataboutism. Moreover, the right-wing media immediately repeats that same attack ad nauseum.

When Whataboutism is the favorite tactic of the leader of the free world it becomes impossible to downgrade anyone on the other side for using it. In fact, I’d say it’s absolutely mandatory for every critic to loudly copy the President’s lead. First, because what he and those blindly following his lead do daily is appalling and real. Second, because if you dislike it at any time you can only say so at the cost of reminding you about the childish behavior of the titular head of the Republican party.

I will make this deal: if the President stops the Whataboutism I’ll come down just as heavily as you on those who continues the tactic. Until then… Heck. We both know there will never be a “then.” Don’t we.

[wolfpup]

@Sam_Stone

Hey, I was responding to a question someone else asked. Don`t like the answer? Don’t ask the question.

Once again reflecting a rather unique view of reality. What actually happened in this thread that is supposed to be about Roy Moore is that HurricaneDitka informed us over here that since Democratic politicians are all scum, Democrats supposedly introduced the idea that even the worst scoundrel in private life can be a great public servant. Did you know that Democrats invented this concept? I didn’t. I’d never heard it before, let alone associated it with Democrats, but never mind. HurricaneDitka doesn’t merely introduce whataboutism into the thread, he drags it in from somewhere in the outer reaches of the far right and hammers us over the head with it.

And then later on we get to hear about “Bill Clinton’s salacious private life” as whataboutism fully takes hold. And then finally you chime in, raising whataboutism to an art form. In the old days we just called this sort of thing “false equivalence”, but perhaps when practiced with such consummate skill and relentless zeal this form of art does deserve a special name.

[wolfpup]

@Sam_Stone

You asked me to name more than one Democrat who was elected despite having similar character flaws. I named a bunch of them. You then proceeded to make excuses for a couple of them on the basis that they were good Senators for your cause, which is kind of the point - it’s easy to excuse the behavior of those doing your bidding. How much legislation Ted Kennedy passed is of no use to Mary Jo Kopechne. And categorizing that incident as just a good, decent guy who made a bad split-second decision is ridiculous. He was intoxicated, he crashed his vehicle, and he ran and didn’t report the accident for fear that he’d be charged. He had no way of knowing if Kopechne was still alive, and he cared more about his reputation and career than he did about getting responders to the scene as quickly as possible.

I didn’t “make excuses for a couple of them”, I pointed out that you were engaging in false equivalency and I showed you why. At no point did I say it was OK to be a sleazebag if said sleazebag passed the right kind of legislation. I pointed out fundamental differences in character from some of the Republicans we’ve been discussing, not to mention competence.

Yes, Ted Kennedy was a good man with flaws, doomed by a single tragic event, as you’ve pretty much described it yourself. What is “ridiculous” here is trying to draw the implication that Ted Kennedy was just like Roy Moore, or Bill Clinton just like Donald Trump. And your smearing of Robert Byrd as being accepted and celebrated by Democrats despite being a horrible racist was particularly egregious since, as I pointed out, he was not at all the same man he had been in his early 20s at a different time in history; he was well regarded by Democrats not because he “brought home the bacon” but because he was for the most part an honorable man and a civil rights advocate who genuinely and demonstrably repented for the rest of his life and made up for past mistakes. False equivalencies everywhere.

I’ll also add that your other examples that I didn’t comment on, like Marion Barry, Rod Blagojevich, etc., are for the most part examples of the quirks and proclivities of local politics that transcend party lines and shouldn’t be evaluated by national standards. If you don’t believe me I’ll give you a great example: Rob Ford. Sure, Marion Barry was a crack-smoking Democrat elected as mayor of Washington. Rob Ford was a crack-smoking lunatic elected on a right-wing platform as mayor of Toronto. Think about that. In the relatively benign and liberal political environment in Canada, Canada’s largest city – one renowned for the liberalism and propriety of the city proper, once nicknamed “Toronto the Good” – elects a lunatic crack addict as its mayor. What does that tell us about the character of federal politicians in Canada? Absolutely nothing.

[septimus]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Black voters turned out in record numbers – more even than turned out to vote for Obama. (And almost all voted for Jones – I’m surprised Moore even got 6% of black votes.) And given Alabama’s voter registration roadblocks, they had to start working on getting registered before this molestation scandal erupted.

Yes, Moore would have won had the blacks not worked hard to overcome GOP voter suppression efforts. But Moore would also have won if he got 6% of the black vote! Instead, according to CBC News(*), Jones won the Black vote 96-4.

Moore won whites 68-30 ! (That’s a pretty high hurdle for the suppressed black voters to overcome.)
Moore did even better among the key Trumpist demographic: white men lacking a college degree: 79-19.

Moore won “white evangelical or born-again Christians” : 80-18. It was non-Christians who don’t even know the story of middle-aged Joseph marrying 14-year old Mary in Bethlehem that took the election away from Alabama’s great champion of Liberty and Justice.

• • Yes, it is Canada’s CBC that shows up when Googling for exit polls. Sad how the best and most relevant news from USA these days comes from Reuters, London papers, CBC, Al-Jazeera or even RT.
    (How’s CNN doing? Have they found that missing airliner yet?)

[septimus]

nm

[QuickSilver]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Actually, it wasn’t decisive – the majority of the voters stated that they had already made their mind up on their vote before the molestation charges became public.

The main difference in this election was turnout.
Black voters turned out in record numbers – more even than turned out to vote for Obama. (And almost all voted for Jones – I’m surprised Moore even got 6% of black votes.) And given Alabama’s voter registration roadblocks, they had to start working on getting registered before this molestation scandal erupted. Republican turnout was down in certain areas, and that is possibly due to the scandal. But it’s hard to tell – turnout is usually down in special elections. Democrats just managed to work against that this time.

Right. Not decisive. Which is what I was saying and why I don’t feel all warm and fuzzy, despite the desirable outcome.

[RickJay]

@septimus

Yes, Moore would have won had the blacks not worked hard to overcome GOP voter suppression efforts. But Moore would also have won if he got 6% of the black vote! Instead, according to CBC News(*), Jones won the Black vote 96-4.

Moore won whites 68-30 ! (That’s a pretty high hurdle for the suppressed black voters to overcome.)

This is actually a very poor performance for a Republican in Alabama. Typically whites will go Republican about five to one.

I’m not sure if Moore actually lost a sixth of white voters to Jones, or if a lot of Republicans said “well the hell with this guy, I’m not bothering,” but it illustrates what a truly awful candidate he was. Moore was running a 100-metre dash here he got to start on the 80 metre line and he still lost.