“erode rule of law” says guy who wanted to overturn an election and whose party is currently advancing the first convicted felon nominee and backing “Project 2025” which proposes to absolutely dynamite “rule of law”
I’m sorry but Republiklans can’t use that line anymore.
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.
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
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.
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
“erode rule of law” says guy who wanted to overturn an election and whose party is currently advancing the first convicted felon nominee and backing “Project 2025” which proposes to absolutely dynamite “rule of law”
I’m sorry but Republiklans can’t use that line anymore.
not saying you’re wrong, but that is a whataboutism
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.
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
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.
how is a concern about upending precedent a nonsensical statement? the source of an argument does not impact its validity as a point
The context makes the statement ironic and unserious.
This is not a whataboutism, this is calling someone out, and their party out, for their hypocrisy.
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
And your whining about a whataboutism is itself a red herring. It’s dragging the point away from what it was originally.
Yes, it does. The statements concerns were bullshit fakery, as proven by the points given.
This is gaslighting