One of the things I’ve grown to hate about politics in recent years has been the tribalism of both the Left and the Right. It seems if someone from one side does something horrible, like killing a bunch of elderly nuns trying to cross the street, the two extremes can’t come together and say “You know, that’s fucked up.” Invariably, one side will say it was wrong and demand justice, and the other side will decry the criticism and claim it was partisan and/or fake news.
The recent revelations about Puddin’ Head Joe and his penchant for leaving classified documents where they shouldn’t be has brought out the worst of this. People on the Right (including your humble correspondent in this case) think this is a criminal offense and should be prosecuted. Leftists, on the other hand, keep trying to defend Puddin’ Head Joe while trying to make distinctions between the current fuckup and the raid on Mar-a-Lago, which is the previous fuckup.
Throughout the online debates on the topic, I see the word “whataboutism” tossed around like a football at a Philadelphia Eagles game. That means it’s time we take a turn at trying to understand it, and hopefully have fun doing it.
whataboutism
What the Left thinks it means – a tactic used by the Right to equate events that are substantively different as a means to excuse right wing criminality
What it really means – a tactic that proves both major parties suck ass
Our good friends at Merriam Webster define whataboutism thus:
the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse
Basically, whataboutism involves diversion and deflection. Instead of taking up the accusation directly, those who engage in it try to bring in something unrelated to the original accusation to get the person levying it to either get defensive or shut down completely.
Unfortunately, both the Left and the Right engage in whataboutism on a regular basis, which makes civil debate on social media next to impossible. Then again, it may be because these debates are being done on social media, where civility is as alien as E.T., or at the very least correct spelling. It is possible, mind you, but you’d have better luck surviving while having credible information that would implicate Hillary Clinton in criminal activity than you would be to actually converse with someone on a political issue.
For the record, I do not have any information on Hillary Clinton, so if you could take that red laser point dot off my forehead, I’d greatly appreciate it. Whew! Now that’s out of the way, back to the topic at hand.
The Left has been doing its usual bang-up job trying to create distance between Puddin’ Head Joe and Donald Trump’s handling of documents. This strategy has a two-fold benefit. First, it excuses Biden while leaving Trump open to criticism. Second, it enables the “whataboutism card” for the Left. If Leftists create enough of a difference in the minds of people who don’t follow current events that closely (i.e. 95% of Twitter users), they can downplay the potential criminality while redefining legitimate criticism as sour grapes.
The problem is these two separate incidents are similar enough to warrant equal scrutiny. Both are former government officials who had confidential documents in locations where they shouldn’t have been in the first place. Spin it any way you want, but the core issue is still the same. Where things get a bit cloudy is in what each official is allowed to declassify and how it was done. That’s a debate for another time (and possibly another blog post).
When you strip away all the partisan bullshit, you can’t call the Right’s outrage over Puddin’ Head Joe’s actions whataboutism because it’s literally the same thing Trump is being accused of. And, to be fair, the Right’s criticisms have more meat with regards to how the President is being treated right now because of the way Trump was treated, with the Left’s overwhelming approval. Even then, it’s hard to get past the whataboutism label completely here since there’s the element of an unequal response, which works in the Left’s favor.
At least, it does until you realize the Left wants there to be different and unequal rules for their side. But that’s to be expected. After all, they’re our moral and intellectual superiors (just ask them).
As long as there are partisan hacks on both sides willing to be intellectually dishonest, there will be whataboutism, and there will be accusations of whataboutism, legitimate or otherwise. We may even find it creeping into our own thinking at times when we let our passions override our logic. The key to overcoming this is to keep consistent when presented with a seemingly contradictory situation.
That’s why I say both Trump and Biden need to be held accountable, no matter what. Not only does it confuse the partisan asshats, but it keeps things nice and simple. Plus, it will make for some great snarking.
Regardless of how you feel about Puddin’ Head Joe, it’s hard to deny the classified documents situation he’s in looks bad, as in Lena Dunham nude pictorial in Playboy bad. That’s why I take the Left’s whataboutism defense of Joe not as seriously as they do. Even so, it’s far too easy a trap to get into with political and ideological differences, mainly because neither side wants to be consistent. They want their team protected and the other team prosecuted until the end of time. But bad behavior is bad behavior, no matter what team you’re on, and it needs to be called out even when the partisan jagoffs accuse you of whataboutism.
When they do, feel free to do what I do and tell them “What about you shut the fuck up?”
Tag: logical fallacies
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you’re getting sick of political ads polluting the airwaves right now. It seems any infraction from an overdue library book in third grade to supporting extreme positions like expecting teachers not to indoctrinate their students into believing they’re transgendered when they still get nap time gets turned into a massive scandal designed to make voters not like a particular candidate. And sometimes these attacks play fast and loose with the facts.
And by sometimes, I mean more frequently than Lindsey Lohan goes back to rehab.
Recently, the Left has rolled out a phrase to describe Republican and conservative candidates who have questions about the 2020 Presidential election went down: election deniers. Although this seems like a silly accusation, the Left is pretty serious about making it stick to as many Republican candidates and their supporters as possible. Which, of course, means it caught my attention.
election deniers
What the Left thinks it means – crazy conspiracy theorists, usually Trump Republicans, who believe the 2020 Presidential election wasn’t legitimate
What it really means – a phrase used to disparage Republicans and conservatives for not accepting the Leftist spin on the 2020 Presidential election
There are two camps with regards to the 2020 Presidential election: those who believe it was the most secure election in our history, and those who have been paying attention. To put it as diplomatically as I can, the election itself was a shitshow of Golgothan proportions. While under the auspices of an election (something Leftists swore up and down Donald Trump would never allow as he installed himself as Big Head Honcho For Life) held during a pandemic, there was some shady shit going on by both teams…I mean parties.
Although the Leftist line has gone from “there wasn’t any systemic voter fraud” to “there was some, but it’s not significant,” they maintain anyone who questions the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election is a loony. Pardon my pedantry for a moment, but wouldn’t the fact there was voter fraud undermine the notion the 2020 election was hunky-dory? Whether it was significant enough to affect the outcome of the election is immaterial because it’s not the scope that matters in the end. Well, except if you’re a proctologist performing a colonoscopy, that is.
I will admit much of the election denial right now is coming from the Right, particularly those on the Trump Train. But I also remember waaaaaaaaay back in 2016 when Leftists were engaged in a little election denial of their own, including current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Granted, she is an idiot, but surely that was an isolated incident, right?
Not. So. Much.
In fact, Leftists and Democrats have a long list of election denials themselves dating back to the 2000 election. To this day, I’m worried there is a male porn star named Hanging Chad out there still getting work, but that’s not important right now.
And let’s not overlook (as if that’s humanly possible) the most prominent election denier the Left has, Stacey Abrams. After being defeated by her Republican opponent for Governor of Georgia, she not only denied she lost, but turned it into a political action movement, a book deal, a cameo on an episode of “Star Trek: Discovery,” and more magazine covers and puff pieces than Michelle Obama. And all that while being Governor of Georgia, no less! Oh wait…
So, Leftists are hypocrites when it comes to election denial, which is no surprise to anyone with Interwebs access and a memory longer than a TikTok video. This leads us to the question of why they’ve switched opinions and now think denying election results is bad. Well, it comes down to power, which is the coin of the Leftist realm. Well, that and incredibly shitty takes on how to fix the problems they cause. When the Left is on the outside looking in, it’s okay to question even the most lopsided Republican victories because, according to the Left, Republicans can’t win elections without cheating. However, when the Left is in power, questioning the elections is tantamount to treason or, even worse, wearing white after Labor Day.
Even if it can be established there were some irregularities in the vote count.
If the Left’s turn of a phrase reminds you of something, it should, since it’s the same language they use when discussing global climate change/climate disruption/climate catastrophes/whatever the Left is calling it this nanosecond. The idea behind it is to suggest anyone who disagrees with the “facts” (i.e. what the Left wants us to believe) is disreputable and denies reality. Yet, these same Leftists who claim to have the facts on their side go out of their ways to suppress any information that runs counter to their conclusions. They’ve gone so far as to ratchet up the rhetoric to 11 (because it’s one higher) by calling them science deniers. Not only are you denying climate change, but you are denying science as a whole. Who could listen to crackpots like that?
Me, for one. I am by nature curious and I want to gather as much information as I can before rendering a decision. Through that, I’ve learned to pick out questionable information and information sources when they don’t make sense. And calling someone a “denier” when there’s a vested interest in doing so is a big red flag.
With the 2020 elections, both sides have a vested interest in either confirming or rejecting the outcome, so it’s a wash. But right now there’s only one side making a case that has identifiable and verifiable flaws from the jump, and, spoiler alert, it’s the side who spent every year since 2016 saying the election results were rigged and doing everything they can to turn the Presidential election into a popular vote contest. If there are any Leftists reading this (or having it be read to you because of all the big words being used) who are confused about who these people are, look in the mirror.
The larger point, however, is the “word magic” being used to get people to squelch any concerns they have about the 2020 election by appealing to popularity and authority. Eagle-eyed readers will remember these are logical fallacies designed to give the impression of being correct without having to go through that pesky task of presenting facts. After all, the Socialist Socialite told us it was better to be morally right than factually correct, and who are we to disagree with her?
That, kids, is an example of what I’m talking about with appeals to authority and popularity. We are being told to ignore our gut instincts if we think something’s not kosher because it will lead to ridicule and disgrace (often hurled in our direction by those telling us to ignore our instincts). Maybe it’s me, but the surest way to make me more skeptical is to tell me not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. The fact Leftists are working so hard to avoid addressing at least some of the questions surrounding Joe Biden’s victory tells me they know they’re bullshitting us.
But to be fair, they’ve had a lot on their plates investigating Donald Trump for having Russian dressing on a salad he ate in 1998. But once they’re done with that, I’m sure they’ll have time for answer the questions. Granted, it will be 2638, and that’s only if the investigation into Trump laughing at a Yakov Smirnoff set wraps up early.
In the meantime, the best way to address the Left painting anyone as an election denier can be summarized in two words: So what? This question is one the Left can’t answer without looking like authoritarian assholes or dishonest assholes. Or assholes in general, but the point’s the same. They don’t know why anyone would disagree with them and they’re not interested in finding out, but they’re heavily invested in making sure no one questions them.
But their tactics only work if you are scared of the consequences. If you gave your last fuck at the office and have no intention of getting more, you remove the fear and subsequently the power the Left wants you to believe they have. And if you want to have more fun, tell them you self-identify as something and their questioning is harassment and, thus, violence. And make them use your pronouns!
No matter what the Left tries to tell you, there are some loose ends related to the 2020 Presidential election that haven’t been tied up yet. As Americans, we can and should ask questions until we get answers that make sense or are persuasive enough to make us look at the situation differently. Even if we don’t like the answers we ultimately get, knowledge is about the journey and not the destination. And maybe even the friends we made along the way.
Except Jeff. He’s an asshole.