In a shocking incident, horrific visuals are surfacing on the internet in which it can be seen that the Hamas militants are taking a semi-naked dead body of an Israeli woman on an open truck and parading in the city. It is said that the militants after attacking Israel are killing and taking the civilians as hostage. The militants took the dead bodies of the innocent civilians who were killed during the attack in open trucks and paraded them.
What Israel does is as you described. But can we please not use whataboutism to try and justify barbaric behavior? This is grotesque. Things done to Palestine are grotesque. Let’s just call evil things evil and not try and say “hey cause someone else did an evil this evil is okay.”
deleted by creator
This was a war crime.
So is Israel firing on Palestinian civilians. Both countries are soaked in innocent blood.
Agreed.
Ignoring the ad hominem in your post, I never said Hamas was Palestine. I said that things done to Palestine are grotesque. I said this action by Hamas was grotesque, and replying to the original commenter that it was “almost as bad” as heinous acts done by the recipient of this evil act does not justify this evil act.
And the Holocaust has literally nothing to do with this discussion, as you mention. Better to make your point would be to actually discuss whataboutism as a definition and provide discussion for why making a counter accusational justification doesn’t qualify as whataboutism (note: the definition of whataboutism is literally responding to an accusation with a counter accusation in an attempt to side step the issue, which I believe is exactly what happened here, eg “this evil act (the accusation) is actually not that bad because of the other evil acts of Israel (counter accusation)”).
So my argument still stands to the tenets by definition, I never equated Hamas to Palestine (and in fact made the same point that acts done to them were also horrible), and never defended Israel or Hamas. I just don’t believe that killing civilians, or committing war crimes or attempting terror campaigns, is justifiable (by either side).
deleted by creator
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whataboutism
Or the Oxford definition:
what·a·bout·ism /ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/ nounBRITISH the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
Edit: downvoting the actual definition from two external, highly authoritative sources that support my previous comments is certainly an interesting choice
These people have no reasoning.
I mean I can’t say I support murdering civilians, but Israel had this coming for a long time. It’s not whataboutism, more just the natural consequence of Israeli policy the last 80 years.
I never said what you’re implying. This is not what aboutism in any sense.
Saying “this is almost as bad” establishes a comparison, and in the context establishes justification for this event because of the comparator. So your response to the barbarism here is a tacit justification by comparison, or taken in another view, a counter accusation. Which is definitive whataboutism: responding to an accusation with a counter accusation.
Comparing two acts isn’t whataboutism…lol
If someone slaps you and you stab him back it’s not whataboutism to point out the disproportionate use of force.
I made no attempt to downplay or excuse the actions of Palestine.
This is not a debate. I pointed out a fact and you got upset about it. Fallacies don’t come into play here at all.
Comparing two acts is the textbook definition of whataboutism.
deleted by creator
🤣. Oh look you’re doing exactly what Wikipedia describes (parenthesis mine):
Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair (this is what I did), and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood (which is the circumstance here).[7]
(Here’s where you come in): Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]
You look like a fool.
Whole lotta words just to say I’m right. Thanks for backing me up I guess…?
Only you’re not, this is the exception like it clearly lays out.
You even admit it yourself: “Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair (this is what I did)”. I didn’t say whether the whataboutism was fair or not, just that the definition was comparing two things. Which you’ve agreed with.
deleted by creator