Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Zinegata »

Tiriol wrote: 2019-10-14 03:03pm
Now, I am going to ask very clearly. Defend your statement that I am a racist. Show how I am a racist. Go ahead. Otherwise I am going to ask the mods to intervene.

I’m waiting. And I’m really expecting an answer that does not rely on some in itself a racist belief about my skin colour or nationality.
Sure! Run to the mods :).

They will very easily see that my argument rests on demonstrating the actual history of "whataboutism" - which is a term invented in the 1960s in order to allow Americans to apologize for their appalling racism towards African Americans. Why else would it originate from a time when the Soviets were criticizing America's "blacks should only be allowed to ride at the back of the bus" policies?

It is a term that you continued to use despite my explanation of its racist history, and its racist history is one that you ignored because you're too dishonest to admit that you were using a racist and bigoted argument.

Prepare to pony up a concession. All your posturing can't hide your bigotry.
As to the rest of your so-called argument, you really cannot fathom a situatiom where one could, horror of horrors, prefer a liberal democracy to a one-party dictatorship without having bigoted reasons for it. You truly think that everyone is deluded into believing that +America is THE GREATEST!!!” and react accordingly. That makes you a sad, little sack of shit who is willingly stupid. Guess what? Your perverted idea of argument ”whataboutism is a form of American bigotry” doesn’t fly, and neither does your raging hard-on for PRC’s leadership.
No, this is you applying your standard selective memory in defense of liberal democracy. Iraq 2003 never happened under liberal democracy, because that's an inconvenient truth showing that democracies do in fact act imperialistically even today.

Note that I never said anything about the British Empire being worse than the Chinese empire. I simply said that the HK government was going to be repressive regardless of who the ultimate colonial master was, implying BOTH are equally bad.

YOU'RE the one who started making those stupid comparisons. Because again your bigotry is pretty fucking obvious and you're too busy sucking Churchill's rotting dick, and you got triggered by the mere implication that the British are just as bad as the Chinese.
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Zinegata »

Eulogy wrote: 2019-10-14 10:53pm
There's a certain irony in capitalist corporations whoring themselves out to communists, and one that to put it mildly isn't a healthy long-term strategy.
And in other news, Lebron took China's side.

So can every NBA team agree to black ball him like the NFL did to Colin Kapaernick?
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Zinegata »

Broomstick wrote: 2019-10-14 09:28am While the US has invented quite a bit of bad stuff over the centuries the US did not invent "whataboutism" - it's logical fallacy and an argument to justify misbehavior that goes back pretty much forever in history, it's nothing new in the world. In the old days it used to be call tu quoque, which has cites as far back as the 1600's. For more about the history and origin of the term see this wiki.

Now that you have been enlightened you may now resume your exchange of vitriol.
Your link literally contradicts your statement

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."

You're talking about Tu Quoque, that's what has been around for centuries. Whataboutism is a variant invented specifically in the Cold War. Indeed, all of the sources mentioned in the article indicate that was it was invented in the 1960s or later.
The term Whataboutism stems from the conjunction of the two words what + about to twist criticism back on the initial critic.[7][8][36]

The Oxford Dictionary of English 2010 edition,[37] and Oxford Living Dictionaries entry on whataboutism states: "Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'."[1] According to the lexicographer Ben Zimmer, the term whataboutism appeared "as early as 1993".[38] In contrast, Andreas Umland, a political scientist and historian of Russia and Ukraine, said the term was used during the Soviet Union period.[21] In 2012, Neil Buckley wrote in the Financial Times that the term was used by "Soviet-watchers".[27]

According to Oxford Dictionary of English, in British English whataboutism is synonymous with whataboutery,[37] which according to Zimmer has been used with a similar meaning since the period of The Troubles conflict in Northern Ireland.[38] In 1974, a letter written by Sean O'Conaill and published in The Irish Times referred to "the Whatabouts ... who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the 'enemy'" and an opinion column in the same paper picked up the theme using the term "whataboutery", which gained wide currency in commentary about the conflict.[38] Zimmer noted that the variant whataboutism was used in the same context in a 1993 book by Tony Parker.[38]

The Merriam-Webster dictionary dates the term back to the Cold War.[20] It references journalist Michael Bernard from The Age, who in 1978 wrote "the weaknesses of whataboutism—which dictates that no one must get away with an attack on the Kremlin's abuses without tossing a few bricks at South Africa, no one must indict the Cuban police State without castigating President Park, no one must mention Iraq, Libya or the PLO without having a bash at Israel".[20]

According to Russian journalist Konstantin von Eggert, the term originated in the 1960s as an ironic description of "the Soviet Union's efforts at countering Western criticism".[39] However, no examples of the term being applied to the Soviet Union exist prior to its usage in The Age in 1978.[40]

British journalist Edward Lucas used the word whataboutism in a blog post of 29 October 2007,[41] reporting as part of a diary about Russia which was printed in 2 November issue of The Economist.[42] "Whataboutism" was the title of an article in The Economist on 31 January 2008, where Lucas wrote: "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'".[7] Zimmer credited Lucas for popularizing the term in 2007–2008.[38] Ivan Tsvetkov, associate professor of International Relations in St Petersburg, dates the practice of whataboutism back to 1950 with the "lynching of blacks" argument, but he also credits Lucas for the recent popularity of the term.[43]
The same article also note that Swedes argue that Whataboutism is consistently used hypocritically:

"Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy"

So again, let's not pretend this is not insecure Americans covering their ears whenever the world points out that their pronouncements about "freedom" and "democracy" are not exactly credible when they force African-Americans to ride in the back of the bus, and that their response to this criticism is to bury their heads in the sand and scream "whataboutism, I win!"

The fact that it works is why Trump still uses it, and why America is a police state for African-Americans.
Last edited by Zinegata on 2019-10-15 12:25am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tiriol
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2005-09-15 11:31am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Tiriol »

ray245 wrote: 2019-10-14 04:33pm
mr friendly guy wrote: 2019-10-14 10:36am Yeah, but the examples in these cases are a case of secession vs non secession. You can say China restricts speech in its territory, but its irrelevant when the speech in question is occurring in Western countries. Those people calling for free <insert region here> are still able to shout it in Western countries. Its a bit of red herring, and by portraying all speech from a pro China crowd as suppressing freedom of speech, people are frankly doing what they accuse China of doing.
I mean if ( whether that's true is another separate point) the Chinese are actively intimidating people from being able to express free speech, then it's still right to call them out on it? Just like you'll do the same to the HKers also actively intimidating Chinese mainlanders from expressing their freedom of speech.
I would also caution about painting far right groups with such a broad brush. Frankly from what I have seen of European examples, while they are bigoted, I don't recall a specific example of them stating opposing groups are not allowed to say offensive things to them.
The alt-right is using such tactics, by labelling people of trying to stop freedom of speech if they no-platform far-right speakers.
Tiriol wrote: 2019-10-14 02:50pm Now, I am going to ask very clearly. Defend your statement that I am a racist. Show how I am a racist. Go ahead. Otherwise I am going to ask the mods to intervene.

I’m waiting. And I’m really expecting an answer that does not rely on some in itself a racist belief about my skin colour or nationality.
Before I begin, I would like to point out that I am not saying you are racist. However, I do like to point out that asking people to prove that you are racist is very often a tactic employed by the alt-right when they are accused of racism.

Asking people who accuse someone of being racist to have to prove it is a situation which enables or benefits racists, because it makes it harder for people to accuse racist of being racist.
Putinist trolls and alt-right also employ PRECISELY similar tactics as Zinegata, so I really don’t have much patience for this argument.
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!

The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Zinegata »

Tiriol wrote: 2019-10-15 12:24am Putinist trolls and alt-right also employ PRECISELY similar tactics as Zinegata, so I really don’t have much patience for this argument.
Hey, how about addressing my argument instead of trying to sneak in a cheap shot. You know you can't prove I'm a Putinist troll but you level that accusation anyway because you're losing this argument so badly.
User avatar
Tiriol
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2005-09-15 11:31am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Tiriol »

Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:10am
Tiriol wrote: 2019-10-14 03:03pm
Now, I am going to ask very clearly. Defend your statement that I am a racist. Show how I am a racist. Go ahead. Otherwise I am going to ask the mods to intervene.

I’m waiting. And I’m really expecting an answer that does not rely on some in itself a racist belief about my skin colour or nationality.
Sure! Run to the mods :).

They will very easily see that my argument rests on demonstrating the actual history of "whataboutism" - which is a term invented in the 1960s in order to allow Americans to apologize for their appalling racism towards African Americans. Why else would it originate from a time when the Soviets were criticizing America's "blacks should only be allowed to ride at the back of the bus" policies?

It is a term that you continued to use despite my explanation of its racist history, and its racist history is one that you ignored because you're too dishonest to admit that you were using a racist and bigoted argument.

Prepare to pony up a concession. All your posturing can't hide your bigotry.
As to the rest of your so-called argument, you really cannot fathom a situatiom where one could, horror of horrors, prefer a liberal democracy to a one-party dictatorship without having bigoted reasons for it. You truly think that everyone is deluded into believing that +America is THE GREATEST!!!” and react accordingly. That makes you a sad, little sack of shit who is willingly stupid. Guess what? Your perverted idea of argument ”whataboutism is a form of American bigotry” doesn’t fly, and neither does your raging hard-on for PRC’s leadership.
No, this is you applying your standard selective memory in defense of liberal democracy. Iraq 2003 never happened under liberal democracy, because that's an inconvenient truth showing that democracies do in fact act imperialistically even today.

Note that I never said anything about the British Empire being worse than the Chinese empire. I simply said that the HK government was going to be repressive regardless of who the ultimate colonial master was, implying BOTH are equally bad.

YOU'RE the one who started making those stupid comparisons. Because again your bigotry is pretty fucking obvious and you're too busy sucking Churchill's rotting dick, and you got triggered by the mere implication that the British are just as bad as the Chinese.
We shall see. Since you continue to accuse me of racism based on the term whataboutism, and nothing else, I am indeed going to ask a mod to see if that’s fine and dandy. And it’s clear that you really don’t have any other arguments about my supposed bigotry and racism. Go and wank some more dictatorship juice.
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!

The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Zinegata »

Tiriol wrote: 2019-10-15 12:27am
We shall see.
Lol, there is no "shall". Everyone can already see that you have no character. Criticizing democracy is not the same as championing dictatorship. You're a hateful little shit who has no principles; that's why you keep trying to sneak in cheap shots.
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Zinegata »

mr friendly guy wrote: 2019-10-14 10:55am
In the above argument Zinegata was involved in, its very relevant to point out the flaws of liberal democracies if your argument is China is bad because its not a liberal democracy. If the argument was China gets a free pass because America is also bad, then its fair to accuse him of using whataboutism, because whether American has done bad things, is irrelevant to whether China has done bad things. However if America gets a free pass (or a more realistically, a lesser "punishment") for doing something worse than China, we are entitled to ask why?
I didn't even criticize liberal democracy in that above argument. My point is that Hong Kong is not a liberal democracy. It never was. This applied to both the British period, and it was carried over into the Chinese period.

Unfortunately the mere suggestion that the Brits would support an autocracy triggered a British Empire fanboy, hence the whataboutism accusations on par with its Cold War usage. Frankly, this is the kind of underlying bigotry and racism one sees all the time on the Internet. If the British or Americans set it up, most English-language commentators always presume that it would be a liberal democracy. It can't possibly be a South American banana republic dictatorship, a repressive Middle East dictatorship, or an autocratic money laundering outpost. They are not aware of the US/UK tendency to support autocratic or even outright genocidal regimes as long as it serves their business interests. How else could Saudi Arabia be lauded as a US ally for so long, without people realizing how it's an awful religious theocracy?

Meanwhile, if China gets involved the assumption is that it's always in support of dictatorships. Even though most of the countries they deal with are in fact democracies!

===

My critique of liberal democracy instead extends to the widespread assumption that China will be some better country if it becomes a democracy. It actually likely won't. Liberal democracies still do all of the imperialistic things that Communist China does. Assuming China will magically transform into a less repressive country just because of elections and a free press is fanfiction. Hell, America has free speech and elections, and yet most Americans are completely ignorant of the fact that they have more people in jail than China!
User avatar
Ace Pace
Hardware Lover
Posts: 8456
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:04am
Location: Wasting time instead of money
Contact:

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Ace Pace »

Eulogy wrote: 2019-10-14 10:53pm While you're boycotting Activision Blizzard, you may as well boycott Apple too.
blahblah
There's a certain irony in capitalist corporations whoring themselves out to communists, and one that to put it mildly isn't a healthy long-term strategy.
Dead. Fucking. Wrong.

Apple sends the data to Tencent if it's a configured inside mainland China. Your iPhone in the west doesn't communicate with those servers.

:banghead:
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by madd0ct0r »

If that is your point Xinegata, its taken an impressive 4 pages to get around to making it. Its almost like you are falling back on stuff that is easier to defend.

Im interested in something touched on earlier. Do you place the ideal of national sovereignty over the ideal of communal self determination?

And since the answer appears to be yes, why?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by ray245 »

Tiriol wrote: 2019-10-15 12:24am Putinist trolls and alt-right also employ PRECISELY similar tactics as Zinegata, so I really don’t have much patience for this argument.
Really? I have not seen that before, in all honesty.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28821
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Broomstick »

Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18am
Broomstick wrote: 2019-10-14 09:28am While the US has invented quite a bit of bad stuff over the centuries the US did not invent "whataboutism" - it's logical fallacy and an argument to justify misbehavior that goes back pretty much forever in history, it's nothing new in the world. In the old days it used to be call tu quoque, which has cites as far back as the 1600's. For more about the history and origin of the term see this wiki.
Your link literally contradicts your statement
No, it doesn't. Latin is no longer taught in the US and few are familar with it, leading to the English-derived term "whataboutism" or "whataboutery" rather thant tu quoque, but it's the same concept and logical fallacy. It's like saying faux pas and social gaffe are completely different concepts when in reality they are the same thing.
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18am"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which in the United States is associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."
Wow, selective quoting? The link clearly states that it the term "whataboutery" during the Cold War was often used to refer to the Soviets justifying various bad things they did by holding up examples of US sins. In other words, it was in reference to what the USSR was doing.
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18amYou're talking about Tu Quoque, that's what has been around for centuries. Whataboutism is a variant invented specifically in the Cold War. Indeed, all of the sources mentioned in the article indicate that was it was invented in the 1960s or later.
The term was invented in the US in the 1960's, but that's a dialectal variation. It's like in the UK those pocket computers we're all carrying these days are called "mobiles" and in the US they're called "cells". They're the same damn things with a different label. Your assertion that "whataboutism" is something new or JUST American is flawed, deeply flawed, from the beginning.
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18am According to Oxford Dictionary of English, in British English whataboutism is synonymous with whataboutery,[37] which according to Zimmer has been used with a similar meaning since the period of The Troubles conflict in Northern Ireland.[38] In 1974, a letter written by Sean O'Conaill and published in The Irish Times referred to "the Whatabouts ... who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the 'enemy'" and an opinion column in the same paper picked up the theme using the term "whataboutery", which gained wide currency in commentary about the conflict.[38] Zimmer noted that the variant whataboutism was used in the same context in a 1993 book by Tony Parker.[38]
Oh - look! - it's NOT just the US using the term! Or using the technique. I am ready to accept your concession based on your own quoting of this source.
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18amBritish journalist Edward Lucas used the word whataboutism in a blog post of 29 October 2007,[41] reporting as part of a diary about Russia which was printed in 2 November issue of The Economist.[42] "Whataboutism" was the title of an article in The Economist on 31 January 2008, where Lucas wrote: "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'".[7] Zimmer credited Lucas for popularizing the term in 2007–2008.[38] Ivan Tsvetkov, associate professor of International Relations in St Petersburg, dates the practice of whataboutism back to 1950 with the "lynching of blacks" argument, but he also credits Lucas for the recent popularity of the term.[43]
Oh, look - ANOTHER example that the US wasn't always the perpetrator. Again, I am ready to accept your concession based on what YOU quoted.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28821
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Broomstick »

Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:26am
Tiriol wrote: 2019-10-15 12:24am Putinist trolls and alt-right also employ PRECISELY similar tactics as Zinegata, so I really don’t have much patience for this argument.
Hey, how about addressing my argument instead of trying to sneak in a cheap shot. You know you can't prove I'm a Putinist troll but you level that accusation anyway because you're losing this argument so badly.
How about trying to address other peoples' arguments instead of accusing them of racism, which apparently you are unable to prove. You level the argument of racism because otherwise you are unable to defend your own position. Talk about "cheap shots" - are you the pot or the kettle?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28821
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Broomstick »

Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:32am Lol, there is no "shall". Everyone can already see that you have no character.
Stop imitating Trump - repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it truth.

I started as a lurker on this thread because I was interested in the discussion, not in your ability to fling poo at other people. Do you actually have anything to contribute to the topic or you just a troll practicing insults?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Darth Yan »

Broomstick wrote: 2019-10-15 04:33am
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18am
Broomstick wrote: 2019-10-14 09:28am While the US has invented quite a bit of bad stuff over the centuries the US did not invent "whataboutism" - it's logical fallacy and an argument to justify misbehavior that goes back pretty much forever in history, it's nothing new in the world. In the old days it used to be call tu quoque, which has cites as far back as the 1600's. For more about the history and origin of the term see this wiki.
Your link literally contradicts your statement
No, it doesn't. Latin is no longer taught in the US and few are familar with it, leading to the English-derived term "whataboutism" or "whataboutery" rather thant tu quoque, but it's the same concept and logical fallacy. It's like saying faux pas and social gaffe are completely different concepts when in reality they are the same thing.
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18am"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which in the United States is associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."
Wow, selective quoting? The link clearly states that it the term "whataboutery" during the Cold War was often used to refer to the Soviets justifying various bad things they did by holding up examples of US sins. In other words, it was in reference to what the USSR was doing.
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18amYou're talking about Tu Quoque, that's what has been around for centuries. Whataboutism is a variant invented specifically in the Cold War. Indeed, all of the sources mentioned in the article indicate that was it was invented in the 1960s or later.
The term was invented in the US in the 1960's, but that's a dialectal variation. It's like in the UK those pocket computers we're all carrying these days are called "mobiles" and in the US they're called "cells". They're the same damn things with a different label. Your assertion that "whataboutism" is something new or JUST American is flawed, deeply flawed, from the beginning.
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18am According to Oxford Dictionary of English, in British English whataboutism is synonymous with whataboutery,[37] which according to Zimmer has been used with a similar meaning since the period of The Troubles conflict in Northern Ireland.[38] In 1974, a letter written by Sean O'Conaill and published in The Irish Times referred to "the Whatabouts ... who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the 'enemy'" and an opinion column in the same paper picked up the theme using the term "whataboutery", which gained wide currency in commentary about the conflict.[38] Zimmer noted that the variant whataboutism was used in the same context in a 1993 book by Tony Parker.[38]
Oh - look! - it's NOT just the US using the term! Or using the technique. I am ready to accept your concession based on your own quoting of this source.
Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-15 12:18amBritish journalist Edward Lucas used the word whataboutism in a blog post of 29 October 2007,[41] reporting as part of a diary about Russia which was printed in 2 November issue of The Economist.[42] "Whataboutism" was the title of an article in The Economist on 31 January 2008, where Lucas wrote: "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'".[7] Zimmer credited Lucas for popularizing the term in 2007–2008.[38] Ivan Tsvetkov, associate professor of International Relations in St Petersburg, dates the practice of whataboutism back to 1950 with the "lynching of blacks" argument, but he also credits Lucas for the recent popularity of the term.[43]
Oh, look - ANOTHER example that the US wasn't always the perpetrator. Again, I am ready to accept your concession based on what YOU quoted.
I did take Latin in college but that was it. It’s still obscure as fuck.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Zinegata wrote: 2019-10-10 02:00am <snipping irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said>

Moreover, that you think Beijing will send tanks to quell the protests is frankly a very outdated view of how the CCP suppresses dissent. They won't send in the army or any tanks. They will instead very publically start dismantling the old HK elite as part of an "anti-corruption" drive, pour money to bring relief to those with actual economic problems, while privately and quietly getting rid of all the leaders of the "protests" who refuse to be satisfied by the work done. That's their standard playbook in the provinces to begin with - and it's one that has been extremely successful because it actually works for the most part.

<snipping irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said>
Dude, seriously, can you just learn how to fucking read before going on a rant? Do you seriously expect any of us to take you seriously if you are going to so utterly miss the point of an incredibly simple post? I mean seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? I honestly don't understand what intellectual impediment could lead you to interpret almost every part of my post in the opposite sense as the actual words mean.

I mean, fuck, the whole point of my post was saying that China "sending the tanks in" isn't a realistic scenario and not one we should be using as a baseline, and your response to it is to stamp your feet and screech about how stupid I am for thinking China is going to send in the tanks? Yeah, duh, you dumb fuck, that was exactly what I was saying.
User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 23329
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Re: Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

Post by LadyTevar »

Ok, ya know what? I'm tired of looking at the Reports Filed by people over this. LOCKED
Image
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
Locked