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.

  • AliasAKA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          🤣. 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.

              • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Dkarma@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is hilarious. The exception means that in this case it is completely valid and not a fallacy. Eg: whether or not it is relevant or fair.

                  You tried to call me out and then got hung by your own petard.

                  • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I never said it wasn’t valid. Just that the definition of whataboutism was comparing two things. Someone else called you out and you seem to think it was me. Imagine going through life being so sensitive. Must be exhausting.