Expressing Your Opinion and Getting Digitally Lynched

And this is a MORE insidious and monstrous plan that what the U.S. had been doing in Iraq up to, and including, Soleimani's assassination? Frankly, neither Iran NOR the U.S. should EVER have had forced in Iraq, and I don't see either having any higher ground or right cause over the other in this regard. They're both just committing blatant banditry in a nation neither of them belong in, militarily speaking.

 

I'd say that whataboutism certainly began as an American political phenomenon in response to Trump. How far has it spread? We'll see. It is dominant in the US. Our British friends can speak to whether or not it shows up there. But I would say, if you want to post here, be ready to be called on it. Adaptability to your location is important.

Our conversation actually began earlier, here.

 

"Location," is kind of an iffy phrase for an Internet forum where people from many nations post freely.

 

"Whataboutism" has been around for much longer than that as a US political phenomenon, obviously.
That said, whataboutism isn't at all the core of the subject. If the US acts as a rogue state it should no longer be taken as a leader of the west.

 

I see cfc as a location and OT as a place at that location. Choose any word you like. The idea is what is important: when you are in a discussion somewhere, it can be important to understand the "rules" of the group. Going to a YE Christian site and belittling them on their own turf is pretty sucky.

 

Then start a thread about it rather than try to interject it into a thread on a different topic. It is not about not talking about something, it is about changing the conversation inappropriately.

 

This thread is about the assassination in rogue-style of a general of another sovereign state. What do you think it is about? Some events 1000 times less notable?

 

I had no idea the CFC OT forum had as strict, stringent, narrowly-defined, and undissenting a community as a YE Christian site? It just somehow NEVER came across that way - at all.

 

Or is about Trump and his decision to assassinate an Iranian general? Stretch the conversation anyway you want, but when you get rejected, the best path is to open a new thread. Often people don't like to do that because they are afraid no one join it. How embarrassing.

 

I think the embarrassment truly BELONGS with others than those other than people speaking their opinion and getting "digitally lynched," because their opinion is "unpopular," - McCarthy style. Unfortunately, we live in a society where those most deserving of shame are utterly shameless, and those who truly believe in what they're saying are "shamed" into silence to protect criminals and societal crimes that happen to be "popular." A clear symptom of a once great civilization in deep decline - among others - if I've ever seen one.

 

The "what is acceptable in a discussion" rules are both formal (ask a moderator) and informal. You have been hit with informal rules by a vocal majority of posters. They either hit back (like in this thread, or walk away from you. @Berzerker is the perfect example of whataboutism here. I pretty much gave up on his political posts and just ignore them now. There is no point.

 

I JUST made a post above on my opinion on that vaunted ideal...

 

I asked that our conversation be broken out of this thread.

 

Thread starter is set as Patine - one has to assume he has to be asked if he likes the title...

 

Who gets or should be embarrassed is less relevant than posters figuring out when they should move what they want to say to a new thread. When one is posting controversial opinions, one had best prepare well and have a cogent and coherent case to make. Because of the twisted nature of human civilization, one has to make a significant effort to contribute where folks might be hostile. If one is not willing to understand and make allowances for where they are and who their audience is, they will be doomed. We are talking about a very specific situation here; generalizing it is interesting, but not useful. I think we are talking about how you have been treated and why. The conversation can be expanded to others here too. CFC-OT does not represent the collapse of western civilization.

Getting along and being inclusive/included is a two way street. Effort is required going both ways.

 

"Whataboutism" is a convenient way to dismiss precedent set by someone on your side.

 

Please explain.

 

If Siddhartha Gautama, Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed of Mecca, Martin Luther, Adam Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Simon Bolivar, Karl Marx, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and many others just capitulated to the hostility of a greater society to their points of view and other shut up, or highly compromised, watered down, or moderated their message to please the status quo, where would we be now?