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
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