General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIdiots on Fox are arguing that Russian interference is fine because America interferes too
Seriously I am starting to wonder if Fox is entirely funded by Russian sources at this point. You know the patriot channel is now actively arguing that because we meddled in the past that we have no moral authority and should therefore accept Russian meddling as just a fact of life. This narrative is being pushed by Fox blonde Martha McCallum tonight on her show (she argued with a former Obama State Department official that we might just have to live with Russian interference and hey we did it too so maybe we just have to accept it).
We have relatives who believe this shit. Its getting more surreal every day as Fox becomes more and more Alex Jones-like and openly supports white nationalist and alt right narratives.
This is disgusting, and Fox has become even more insane and dangerous. Making pro-Russia arguments?! And Tucker Carlson pursues a blatantly white nationalist narrative every single night on his show, denying any collusion, attacking the fbi, and screaming about the dangers of illegal aliens and asking why white people cant talk about how great they are, etc. Its straight from the alt right, and its no coincidence that they love him. I do my best to ignore it all but the narratives we hear are just amazing.
emulatorloo
(44,133 posts)If everyone is guilty of something, is no one guilty of anything?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning
Some of the terms we use to describe political rhetoric are as old as politics itself (see ad hominem attacks, or such devices as synecdoche, metonymy, or zeugma). Others are more recent additions, driven by the evolution of the news cycle (like fake news and dog whistles).
But hey, arent we ignoring a bigger subject here? How can we talk about rhetorical devices and not mention whataboutism?
Essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse
Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?" ) to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; its essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
<snip>
The association of whataboutism with the Soviet Union began during the Cold War. As the regimes of Josef Stalin and his successors were criticized by the West for human rights atrocities, the Soviet propaganda machine would be ready with a comeback alleging atrocities of equal reprehensibility for which the West was guilty.
Michael Bernard, The Age (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), 17 Jun. 1978
<snip>
Before the 2016 presidential election, more instances of whataboutism applied to criticism among regimes than between individual politicians:
<snip>
Max Seddon, Buzzfeed, 25 Nov. 2014
<snip>
The term is seeing a bit of a renaissance in our current political climate. Philip Bump writes in The Washington Post that President Donald Trump has utilized whataboutism frequently as a way of deflecting criticism for his actions, such as his pardon of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio.
<snip>
Time will tell if whataboutism can persuade its way into the language, but its recent upswing in usage suggests it may have staying power. At least until someone changes the subject.
-
Much more at link.
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,319 posts)dem4decades
(11,297 posts)What stupid reasoning.