• chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      No, it isn’t. Whataboutism is pointing to a different wrong as a way to dismiss a currently discussed wrong. This is using someone’s past actions as a reason they shouldn’t be trusted in their current statement. It’s a legitimate attack on the speaker’s ethos.

      • yetiftw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        3 months ago

        but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          If this were a debate he’s making an argument that he’s denied the underlying principle of: eg arguing the “sky is blue” after saying “blue doesn’t exist”. I’m pointing out that this is a nonsensical statement in the context it was given.

          • yetiftw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            3 months ago

            how is a concern about upending precedent a nonsensical statement? the source of an argument does not impact its validity as a point

    • OnlyJabs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is not a whataboutism, this is calling someone out, and their party out, for their hypocrisy.

      • yetiftw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        3 months ago

        but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement

          Yes, it does. The statements concerns were bullshit fakery, as proven by the points given.