We need to understand what the purpose of whataboutery is. When you see a counter-argument to any argument, that starts with "what about", it serves only one purpose - to accuse the arguer of hypocrisy.
In TV debates, press conferences or SM arguments, the only type of argument that you will see is that the person(s) raising a point has practiced the same behavior early and shows hypocrisy. That frees up the necessity of countering the actual argument.
Imagine you are diabetic and are not controlling your sugar intake. I advise you to stop taking sugar. Now, I myself may be also diabetic and can't control my sugar. My advices make me a hypocrite but doesn't diminish the importance of the actual advice.
We all need to understand that factual counter-arguments of a hypocrite reduce the credibility of the person, but doesn't negate the actual argument.
Arguments and arguers are two very different things. We need to be able to separate those in a mature democracy.
Arguments and arguers are two very different things. We need to be able to separate those in a mature democracy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
