Iraq protests

[Estebonrober]

We do call them out, don't we? The rest of the world was very clear that we found the US evidence and reasoning for invading Iraq in 2003 to be flimsy. Many European countries refuse to expatriate criminals to the US because of constant human rights violations in US prisons. Every other country has made it clear that they disagree with the US abandoning the latest Climate agreement. I'd say there's been official protests and demonstrations both inside and outside the US on a whole range of topics during the entire time it has been a superpower.

The only ones who can actually change the US is the American people, however. It is extremely unlikely that the rest of the world will be able to band together to put sanctions on the US, and there's no reason that the US economy and military might will shrink drastically relative to the rest of the world anytime soon. The rest of us can protest all we like, but we still have to play ball with the US, one way or the other.

But for all the faults I can list with the US, this is still a far better world than it would have been without the US's domination.

Well I protest our drone strikes in general, although I'm uncertain about this one. I protest our general lack of leadership for a better world (arms treaties, climate change, tax shelters, interpol). We basically suck.

 

[Estebonrober]

If the topic of the conversation is Person A and particular events attributed to Person A and you offer something about Person B, it is a distraction from the conversation and an attempt to change the subject.

Me: Person A did this and it is bad.
You: Wait, what about when Person B did that?
Me: That is not the conversation
You: You are ignoring my contribution
Me: You are not contributing; you are changing the conversation to avoid the topic
You: I am not; I'm just expanding the topic
Me: Nobody wants to expand the topic. We want to stay focused

There was a time when whataboutism could be an appropriate contribution. Those days are gone. The conservatives killed it because they overused used it to distract and shield Trump from his crimes.
What you need to do is start another thread about the conversation you want to have. Thread drift is a real thing and can be fun, but when folks repeatedly distract from the topic to point in a different direction, it looks like they are doing so to stop the conversation, or because they have nothing to contribute to it, or because have no response to the posts being made.

The tactic makes one look intellectually weak, ignorant and unable to actually defend one side of an argument.

Time wasted @Birdjaguar, he is morally and mentally superior to you and thus is not answerable to any logic you may present.

 

[Hrothbern]

In 2011 Iran tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in the US using Mexican Drug Cartel people. They bumbled the job badly though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2011/10/11/gIQAiaYxcL_story.html

More recently in the Netherlands:

Iran most likely assassinated two Dutch citizens (from Iranian ancestry) here in 2015 and 2017.
When evidence was high enough, Iran was confronted with this, refused to react other than denial, and two employees of the Iranian embassy were expelled in 2018
As further consequence the EU added sanctions on Iran in January 2019.
https://www.ad.nl/buitenland/minister-blok-iran-zat-achter-moorden-in-nederland~af8414b5/

 

[Patine]

There was a time when whataboutism could be an appropriate contribution. Those days are gone. The conservatives killed it because they overused used it to distract and shield Trump from his crimes.

Who, of exalted stature and impeccable respectability, made this decision that arguments now arbitrarily with an obnoxious "Putinism" are no longer applicable, though they may have once have been, because people who call themselves "Conservatives," (but aren't really), are "overusing it," to one world whose impact on the flow of world events, ideology, current, and, in the end, probably history, are overinflated hyperbolically and histrionically by people today with no sense of perspective or proportion? Who are these "wise men on the mountain," who made these decisions, and where is the mountain so I can kick their butts off of it?

 

[Cheetah]

Well I protest our drone strikes in general, although I'm uncertain about this one. I protest our general lack of leadership for a better world (arms treaties, climate change, tax shelters, interpol). We basically suck.

I wouldn't say you suck, but you're rather bad at being good.

But again, I'd rather have you guys struggling with being good, than the actual bad guys having free range.

 

[Estebonrober]

I wouldn't say you suck, but you're rather bad at being good.

But again, I'd rather have you guys struggling with being good, than the actual bad guys having free range.

Yea I don't argue with that, I would just wish we did better than the garbage we've seen the last twenty years. I mean post internet age we have the information at our hands to be better than this.

 

[El_Machinae]

Who, of exalted stature and impeccable respectability, made this decision that arguments now arbitrarily with an obnoxious "Putinism" are no longer applicable, though they may have once have been, because people who call themselves "Conservatives," (but aren't really), are "overusing it," to one world whose impact on the flow of world events, ideology, current, and, in the end, probably history, are overinflated hyperbolically and histrionically by people today with no sense of perspective or proportion? Who are these "wise men on the mountain," who made these decisions, and where is the mountain so I can kick their butts off of it?

So, just for the record, you're rejecting the feedback from multiple people on making your posts more readable?

 

[Patine]

So, just for the record, you're rejecting the feedback from multiple people on making your posts more readable?

I'm not sure what, exactly, you're saying here.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Who, of exalted stature and impeccable respectability, made this decision that arguments now arbitrarily with an obnoxious "Putinism" are no longer applicable, though they may have once have been, because people who call themselves "Conservatives," (but aren't really), are "overusing it," to one world whose impact on the flow of world events, ideology, current, and, in the end, probably history, are overinflated hyperbolically and histrionically by people today with no sense of perspective or proportion? Who are these "wise men on the mountain," who made these decisions, and where is the mountain so I can kick their butts off of it?

Who? Smart people who recognize that the technique is destructive to conversations and discussions. Smart people who understand that the technique is used by weak-minded folks to distract from the issues under discussion. Smart people who want to talk in depth about particular issues or people and come to an understanding of those issues without being led astray by those who don't. That's who.


"Whataboutism" is not about adding perspective. To add perspective or expand the context of a conversation you have to do something different. You need to explain the purpose of adding the new dimension. Perhaps you want to correct a statement by adding new facts. Perhaps you want to show that this is nothing new and that it has happened before with some blah blah results. Perhaps you want to show that the situation is brand new and not like others in the past. In any case saying "But Bush/Obama/Hillary did it too..." is worthless, stupid and disrespectful. If you want anyone to care about your post you have to make it clear that it enhances the conversation that exists (or perhaps put it to rest). Even then lots of times no one will care. If you can't make the case that your perspective is worth listening to, no one else will.

 

[Patine]

Who? Smart people who recognize that the technique is destructive to conversations and discussions. Smart people who understand that the technique is used by weak-minded folks to distract from the issues under discussion. Smart people who want to talk in depth about particular issues or people and come to an understanding of those issues without being led astray by those who don't. That's who.


"Whataboutism" is not about adding perspective. To add perspective or expand the context of a conversation you have to do something different. You need to explain the purpose of adding the new dimension. Perhaps you want to correct a statement by adding new facts. Perhaps you want to show that this is nothing new and that it has happened before with some blah blah results. Perhaps you want to show that the situation is brand new and not like others in the past. In any case saying "But Bush/Obama/Hillary did it too..." is worthless, stupid and disrespectful. If you want anyone to care about your post you have to make it clear that it enhances the conversation that exists (or perhaps put it to rest). Even then lots of times no one will care. If you can't make the case that your perspective is worth listening to, no one else will.

Who are these "smart" people, and why is their "intelligence and insight" viewed as greater than others, and why? Unless we are observing formal Toastmasters rules and regulation of debate, such labels have no inherent or intrinsic validity. They may fulfill the purpose you state from time-to-time, but they also be the disingenuous tactic I pointed out. Why should such a term be considered to have the benefit of the doubt of being used correctly just for being dropped as such into a debate? Why should it's usage be trusted and deferred because of mysterious, unnamed "smart people," coming up with it in the first place?

 

[Truthy]

I'm not sure what, exactly, you're saying here.

You wrote this monster of a sentence:

Who, of exalted stature and impeccable respectability, made this decision that arguments now arbitrarily with an obnoxious "Putinism" are no longer applicable, though they may have once have been, because people who call themselves "Conservatives," (but aren't really), are "overusing it," to one world whose impact on the flow of world events, ideology, current, and, in the end, probably history, are overinflated hyperbolically and histrionically by people today with no sense of perspective or proportion?

Though it is just one sentence, it has:
- 75 words
- a gazillion clauses
- a ton of unnecessary adjectives
- a ton of unnecessary adverbs
- an unnecessary parenthetical
- ~10 different ideas crammed in

This isn't the Great Awakening. You're not winning rhetoric points for flowery, overwrought, meandering sentences. All you're doing is ensuring no one has a clue what you're trying to say. Your posts are unreadable. This has been pointed out to you many times. But rather than heeding anyone's friendly advice, you keep churning out beauties like the above.

 

[Patine]

You wrote this monster of a sentence:

Though it is just one sentence, it has:
- 75 words
- a gazillion clauses
- a ton of unnecessary adjectives
- a ton of unnecessary adverbs
- an unnecessary parenthetical
- ~10 different ideas crammed in

This isn't the Great Awakening. You're not winning rhetoric points for flowery, overwrought, meandering sentences. All you're doing is ensuring no one has a clue what you're trying to say. Your posts are unreadable. This has been pointed out to you many times. But rather than heeding anyone's friendly advice, you keep churning out beauties like the above.

Perhaps another Great Awakening or Enlightenment is sorely needed, given the current abysmal state of social, political, cultural, and economic trends.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Who are these "smart" people, and why is their "intelligence and insight" viewed as greater than others, and why? Unless we are observing formal Toastmasters rules and regulation of debate, such labels have no inherent or intrinsic validity. They may fulfill the purpose you state from time-to-time, but they also be the disingenuous tactic I pointed out. Why should such a term be considered to have the benefit of the doubt of being used correctly just for being dropped as such into a debate? Why should it's usage be trusted and deferred because of mysterious, unnamed "smart people," coming up with it in the first place?

To begin we have members of this forum. I include myself in that list. Beyond that, there have been lots of smart folks in media, academia, off the street, in government who understand that the tactic as stupid and does nothing to enhance to conversation. It's a consensus of smart people who value discussion. Not everyone is in agreement with it though. Folks whose primary agenda is distraction and obfuscation don't like being called out for what they do. People use the "whataboutism" tactic usually because they are unable to offer a reasonable argument within the bounds of the discussion.

But some have found other ways distract from a discussion they are unable/unwilling to participate in: they derail the thread with discussions about why they feel slighted and demand explanations. I am an enabler.

 

[Patine]

To begin we have members of this forum. I include myself in that list. Beyond that, there have been lots of smart folks in media, academia, off the street, in government who understand that the tactic as stupid and does nothing to enhance to conversation. It's a consensus of smart people who value discussion. Not everyone is in agreement with it though. Folks whose primary agenda is distraction and obfuscation don't like being called out for what they do. People use the "whataboutism" tactic usually because they are unable to offer a reasonable argument within the bounds of the discussion.

But some have found other ways distract from a discussion they are unable/unwilling to participate in: they derail the thread with discussions about why they feel slighted and demand explanations. I am an enabler.

But, you haven't answered how it is decided when the term is being used as you claim, or when it's being used as the disingenuous tactic I claim, and how to distinguish the two. You're basically saying it just must always be assumed to be the former just because the word is dropped - that the usage of the word alone must be viewed as golden and sincere, and not questioned or challenged further for possible less highbrow motives - like the one I've pointed out and witnessed often. That SEEMS to be what you're saying.

 

[Patine]

To begin we have members of this forum. I include myself in that list. Beyond that, there have been lots of smart folks in media, academia, off the street, in government who understand that the tactic as stupid and does nothing to enhance to conversation. It's a consensus of smart people who value discussion. Not everyone is in agreement with it though. Folks whose primary agenda is distraction and obfuscation don't like being called out for what they do. People use the "whataboutism" tactic usually because they are unable to offer a reasonable argument within the bounds of the discussion.

But some have found other ways distract from a discussion they are unable/unwilling to participate in: they derail the thread with discussions about why they feel slighted and demand explanations. I am an enabler.

I mean, it seems we could start a whole new thread to debate this, and give it some snazzy title like, "What About Whataboutisms," because this, I will admit, definitely NOT about the assassination of an Iranian general, or even an expansion into whether or not the CIA are as much a terrorist organization as he was.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But, you haven't answered how it is decided when the term is being used as you claim, or when it's being used as the disingenuous tactic I claim, and how to distinguish the two. You're basically saying it just must always be assumed to be the former just because the word is dropped - that the usage of the word alone must be viewed as golden and sincere, and not questioned or challenged further for possible less highbrow motives - like the one I've pointed out and witnessed often. That SEEMS to be what you're saying.

Like most changes in language use, they happen. No one made an explicit decision. Usage drives change often based on stuff happening in the world. Gay stopped meaning one thing and now means another thanks to the 80s. Nouns have become verbs. Conservative used to mean one thing, now no one knows what it means. The Republican effort to protect Trump by citing Hillary and Obama has changed how people discuss politics. "But they did it too..." is no longer an argument. It's inappropriateness has expanded beyond Trump to many more topics. Get with the program.

You can always blame the influence peddlers on Twitter, Instagram and FB.

 

[Patine]

Like most changes in language use, they happen. Usage drives change often based on stuff happening in the world. Gay stopped meaning one thing and now means another thanks to the 80s. Nouns have become verbs. Conservative used to mean one thing, now no one knows what it means. The Republican effort to protect Trump by citing Hillary and Obama has changed how people discuss politics. "But they did it too..." is no longer an argument. It's inappropriateness has expanded beyond Trump to many more topics. Get with the program.

You can always blame the influence peddlers on Twitter, Instagram and FB.

But despite Trump's immense ego, and his dedicated opponents' myopic fixation on him, there is a LOT more in affairs and the world, even in socio-politic matters in the modern day, worthy of being discussed other than him. And, in Canada, offline, where I live, I think I've only heard the term used TWICE! Has the language and the discussion changed globally, or only parochially and contextually?

 

[Zkribbler]

Reuter's article "Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack U.S. forces in Iraq sets out the Iranian plot in surprising detail:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ni-to-attack-u-s-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Removed derailing posts as requested and moved them here

 

[El_Machinae]

Trump warned Iran that the U.S. has targeted 52 sites “at a very high level and important to Iran and Iranian culture.”
.

"Go after their families"