That’s interesting. Why does that standard change so much in the context of presidential candidates compared to every other situation?
Like, if someone was criticizing, say, Fidel Castro, and instead of addressing it I brought up the problems with the Batista regime that he opposed, would that be whataboutism? Just as in a presidential election, there were two realistic possibilities, either Batista stays in power or he’s overthrown. So if it’s valid to divert from criticism of Biden towards problems with his most realistic alternative, Trump, then why would it not be valid to do the same thing with Castro and Batista, or any number of similar cases?
Understood. So as long as I’m talking about the same metric, I’m allowed to bring up how things were before a socialist government came to power and that’s not whataboutism.
When Castro and Batista will be running candidates, we can ask them their stance on Israel and give them cute nicknames, but until then, we can debate the stance of Biden and Trump, the two running candidates and compare their platform.
So the choice is between a senile old man with good intentions and a treasonous, syphalitic crook. And the crook has a non zero chance of winning.
Fuck me, what a shit show.
Good intentions? He’s a genocide supporter - hardly a paragon of virtue
So youre saying you think Trump doesn’t support genocide? Or are you saying it doesn’t matter you just wanna bash Biden.
Congress loves genocide, doesn’t matter which president.
I thought whataboutism was like a cardinal sin to redditors
Good thing we’re on lemmy.
But it’s not whataboutism when we compare the two presidential candidates on their platform and actions.
That’s interesting. Why does that standard change so much in the context of presidential candidates compared to every other situation?
Like, if someone was criticizing, say, Fidel Castro, and instead of addressing it I brought up the problems with the Batista regime that he opposed, would that be whataboutism? Just as in a presidential election, there were two realistic possibilities, either Batista stays in power or he’s overthrown. So if it’s valid to divert from criticism of Biden towards problems with his most realistic alternative, Trump, then why would it not be valid to do the same thing with Castro and Batista, or any number of similar cases?
We are talking about a stance of two presidential candidates, the context matter when talking whataboutism.
In this case, the stance of both candidates on Israel is part of their political platform and we’re in the presidential campaign.
Whataboutism would be Republicans defending Trump on its criminal charge by talking about Hillary’s emails. Those two things are unrelated.
Understood. So as long as I’m talking about the same metric, I’m allowed to bring up how things were before a socialist government came to power and that’s not whataboutism.
When Castro and Batista will be running candidates, we can ask them their stance on Israel and give them cute nicknames, but until then, we can debate the stance of Biden and Trump, the two running candidates and compare their platform.
Is that hard to grasp?