The most annoying thing about the constant whataboutism, and why I've mostly stopped responding to or even acknowledging it, is that in many cases I've had conversations with those exact posters on the exact topics they're trying to deflect to, often very recently. Like, we repeatedly discussed things like the DNC leaks and Clinton's email server in the election thread, then a month later the same people I talked to are saying, "Where was the outrage when blahblahblah". Well, we talked about that, back when it was, y'know, relevant.
Or when it refers to something decades ago, like I can't criticize something Trump did today unless I produce an impassioned Usenet post from 10th grade where I say the same things about Bill Clinton, and I'm somehow morally diminished by not being able to do so.
And, of course, the logic quickly disappears up its own backside if applied consistently, like how the whatabouters are calling out some opinions, but what about those other opinions they aren't calling out, where was their outrage then, hmmm? It's nonsense.
Ultimately, there's some value in providing context to events that are rarely noted or poorly understood - for example it's reasonable to note that gov't officials meet with the Russian ambassador all the time, or that use of private servers for gov't email is unfortunately very common. That can be informative, you can build from that and have a productive discussion about specific circumstances that make this instance worse or better. But the reflexive, constant drumbeat of "you're a hypocrite because X" blather just seems like a lazy attempt to change the subject to an attack on the messenger while implying moral superiority over them. It's so shallow, hackish and petty that it kills the quality of discussion when it takes over a thread, and even worse I think that's largely the point.
FWF, I genuinely appreciate your basketball insights and posts. But I find it not surprising in the least that you're objecting to this post, because I think that you're ultimately one of the main perpetrators of this inconsistent logic.
Yes, we had numerous conversations about some of these issues several months back, and just as I said in the post above
, the vast majority of your dialogue on the matter was a bunch rationalizations, equivocations, and downplaying the issues as "false equivalencies" and defending the perpetrators. You can't act like you were over there "outraged" at these issues. You were simply defending them in your dialogue. That doesn't mean you "talked about it" and were significantly concerned about the actions. That's revisionist history that proves nothing.
And you can't imply that I'm some partisan hack perpetrating this same logic either. I was one of the more vocal opponents of Trump during both the primaries and the election. I routinely criticized issues and people on both the left and right. However, this blog has become such a leftist echo chamber that even the simplest and smallest of criticisms of the left are outliers, which paints the poster as a conservative or Republican, even though I've been very vocal in my support of classical liberalism that is opposed to numerous basic conservative principles.
Finally, the fact that you're talking about my post "implying moral superiority" while this very same post absolutely reeks of this very implication, along with the typical snarky, elitist leftist arrogance, just absolutely puts the cherry on top of this lack of self-awareness pie. No wonder the far right has won so much in the last decade; this is the typical inconsistent logic and attitude that most leftists reason with anymore. And this is exactly why much more political parity is needed on these blogs, because inconsistent posts like these go unchallenged way too often on here. Roy can't do it all himself, but most of the others have just said "screw it" (or been banned) because it's not worth dealing with the repercussions of the leftist tidal wave that you have to fight against.
At least I'm explicit and direct in my posts. Yes, I am absolutely
making a moral judgment about the whole hypocrisy claim. Consistency is the fundamental basis of morality, and inconsistent, biased logic is an immoral use of reason that should not be tolerated.
Many of you are missing the entire point. The very fact that you are much more inclined to make a critical post about Trump's corruption, dishonesty, and executive overreach rather than corruption, dishonesty, and executive overreach from a leftist perspective implies bias and hypocrisy.
It's hard for people to take these major criticisms of Trump on here (or in the media) seriously, because the same "outrage" wasn't apparent with the Obama administration's corruption, dishonesty, and executive overreach. If you can't see the problem there, then you're just being willfully ignorant, because I think it's clear that you're intelligent enough to see the problem there. The fact that you're once again trying to rationalize and justify these differing treatments and focuses is just further proof of bias and hypocrisy, and you're better than that.