I've noticed that usually when people have their ideology questioned in some way they resort to whataboutism instead of actually defending their own position, why is that?
Also pic unrelated.
Because most people suck at arguing.
>>868576
I'm actually surprised by how few people on a history board can argue well, and how few actually know the historical method
Perhaps because people don't want to take responsibility for something they themselves haven't done, even if people who have professed the same ideology as them in the past has done wicked things.
People suck at debating shit
Also people feel extremely close to things that define their life and that they identify with, and others insulting or at least questioning such things can come off as personal attacks
and we know it's not easy to remain calm, logical and rational against personal attacks, because emotions and ego are deeply involved
>>868589
Most people here are doing it for fun and an amateurish interest.
Me included.
A Marxist will always reply to criticism of socialist revolutions with criticism of capitalism.
>>868589
>I'm actually surprised by how few people on a history board can argue well, and how few actually know the historical method
where do you think we are.jpg
>>868645
They will also usually respond to criticism of shit like the Great Leap Forward, that capitalism has killed more people, as if that absolves the Maoist government even if it were true.
Just because people believe in something doesn't mean they know anything about it, or at least know it well.
>>868571
Depends on what arguments you're talking about but people tend to question another person's ideology from a logically fallacious manner from the get go, even whataboutism the historical example of this you're referencing often fell into that.
I'd say as a whole this comes about because we tend to apply illogical conclusions based on tangential information without realizing/acknowledging, so the opposing side feels they have to prevent this illogical conclusion instead of focusing on the actual argument.
>>868571
This is debate, lad. Rhetoric is what counts, clever people will navigate around arguments that they cannot refute and control the progression of the debate. One of the most effective tactics is to gradually transform a debate into a trial where the opposition is forced into a defensive position where they are the sole target of criticism and other participants form a 'neutral' jury and avoid having to properly engage arguments as ideologically loaded individuals.
>>868571
If the debate is about which system/ideology is best among others, rather than about which system is absolutely good, then whataboutism is a perfectly legitimate argument.
Whataboutism is a meme, it's silly to take arguments outside of context.
Whining about whataboutism is what intellectual lazies do when they can't defend their own arguments.
>>868571
thats because peoples ideological positions are mostly based on identification and bias and as such cannot realy be effectively defended, so its necesary to resort to rhetoric, demagogy and avoidance tactics
in a sense ones ideology is a combination of that which one would want to be true and that which one ignores or refuses to openly percieve, and is enforced by animosity towards those who would think in some other set of ideological notions
most attacks on ideology are again made from specific ideological positions, and the attacks themselves are mostly absurd constructs, like arguing who killed more people, making comparisons that simplify things to 12 yo levels, or statements like 'xy never worked' and so on, so its all a sterile game that goes nowhere fast
this does not get better as the intelectual/academic/publick/etc level goes up, they just add more words
>>868645
>>868653
>>868666
>not realizing this is a legitimate point
By saying "Communism/Socialism has killed millions of innocents." you're impying that this aspect makes it unfit to be the system under which we live. The response that you deride, that "Capitalism has ALSO killed millions." is simply point out that by the same metric you discarded their system, yours would also be thrown out. This is a direct response to your point.
If you say "Well fuck you never mind then." then the conversation can procede to something more interesting.
But if you say "Oh shit you're right both of them suck." then it can really get going as the two of you can move outside of the arbitrary lineup of political/economic systems into a comparison of what you think is right and just as well as an examination of your preconceptions.
>>872351
The issue is that it's a logical fallacy, an appeal to hypocrisy.
>Communism is oppressive and the USSR commits human rights violations on a massive scale
>Capitalism is oppressive too.
There's no actual argument made, just basically "well you're a hypocrite and therefore your logic is invalid".
>>872859
It isn't really though, it's not necessarily an appeal to hypocrisy when you're weighing up two systems.
For example, pros of CPSU ideology:
Greater equality (humor me), guaranteed employment, no risk of your employer going bankrupt before 1991, etc.
Cons of CPSU: oppressive, human rights violations, etc.
Pros of US ideology:
Greater liberty, chance for higher wages, more consumer goods
Cons of US:lower equality, risk of unemployment, racism (again humor me)
It's just an example, but assuming you've got to pick one of the two (in reality a pretty false choice, but for an alternative example I could've done the pros and cons of a democrat and a republican - in reasonable terms only one is going to win, your only alternative to picking one is not voting or wasting your vote.) it's entirely reasonable to say "Right, so you think that racism is a fair trade-off for greater liberty, even if you don't like racism?"
Furthermore there are a number of instances where people clearly try to influence opinion one way or the other with their comments on certain issues. For example, a USSR person may call the US out on oppression, then cry 'whataboutery' when the US person points out that their oppression is even worse, even though (within the context of the example) the soviet was only trying to make the US look bad relative to the USSR, when in reality no movement of positions has occurred. This isn't an appeal to hypocrisy in itself (it isn't arguing no oppression occurs, not is it saying oppression is acceptable), it's saying "yes, but if you were in power the issue would be even greater.", which is a valid way to handle political discourse.
>>872906
... and here we have a perfect example of strawmanning.
Either way, kids, I'd like to remind everyone here that "whataboutism" is often a desire for context.
Dialectic materialism says that something cannot be "bad" (or "good") by itsellf. It can be "bad" only compared to something. Therefore, when someone says US or SU are "bad", a good commie will attempt to determine what is the unit of measure here. I.e. what are US or SU are being compared to.
You will have to either give those units of measure (context) or claim that there is a universal scale on which USSR is "bad" (in which case discussion will get sidetracked to the idealism/materialism). Otherwise, even the most polite Marxist will start asking about the "lynched Negroes".
>>874017
>It isn't really though, it's not necessarily an appeal to hypocrisy when you're weighing up two systems.
It is when you don't build on it or if the comparisons are absurd. If you treat it as a dismissal or even a point against someone's logic, it's a fucking fallacy pure and simple.
>The USSR has gulags, imprisons people for dissent and within living memory murdered millions of people
>Oh yeah? Well you're mean to black people so you don't have any room to talk.
>Chernobyl melted down and is spreading radiation across most of Europe because you commie shits were negligent
>Well what about Three-Mile Island, that nuclear disaster where nothing happened?
>>874465
> murdered millions of people
Is killing Nazis such a bad thing?
>>874017
>Greater equality
I assume you are not from an ex-commie country.
>>874506
I assume you never lived in USSR (or compared it to other nations).
>>868571
Defense mechanism employed by the retarded or rather the uneducated people.
There are more uneducated people in the world than educated, therefore you're more likely to encounter uneducated people. By educated, I meant in the logic/philosophy department.
Another common is when you argue with someone, they will try to throw whatever they think is right at you and hope it sticks. Whatever their initial argument is, as long as 1 thing looks like it sticks, they will say they've won. Regardless of whether or not its even related to their argument or not.
>bananas have made of bone
>humans have bone
>are you denying humans have bone?
>therefore bananas have bone
etc. waste of time to even argue with these people
>>874465
>so you don't have any room to talk.
That isn't my point.
It's largely implicit, and there are many cases of simple appeal to hypocrisy, but you're weighing up two systems.
It isn't "you don't have any room to to talk" so much as "I'll take gulags and murder over racism." (Or more rationally, a US person saying the inverse.) even if they consider those bad things. If a pro-US person brings up gulags, he doesn't want a simple recognition gulags are bad (basically self-evident), he wants you to attack your own ideology so he can say "Look, even the soviet thinks the USSR sucks, i must be great!" instead of the more realistic position that both systems are shit, you've just got to weigh up which is more shit based on it's own individual flaws.
(Incidentally, I'd almost say USSR and west isn't a fair comparison as the USSR had significantly more issues, but it is an easy example to make nonetheless.)
>>874017
Ameritrash spotted
>>872351
>PEOPLE WE ARE EATING VOMIT! THIS IS DISGUSTING, WE HAVE TO EAT SOMETHING ELSE!
>Okay, what do you propose?
>LET'S EAT SHIT AND DO AWAY WITH EATING VOMIT LIKE RETARDS
>But ... shit is also disgusting
>SHUT THE FUCK UP AT LEAST YOU'RE NOT EATING VOMIT
This is pretty much what communist arguments sound like to me. Remember, commies essentially argue that capitalism is shitty and rotten and needs to be replaced with something different (and presumably better), often through a violent revolution. So when socialism is installed and people realize it's also horrible, you think it's a legitimate point to say BUT CAPITALISM IS SHIT TOO?
>>874711
Pretend (because ultimately the two objects in question are arbitrary) that shit is better tasting than vomit.
You can complain that shit still tastes shitty, but assuming you're trying to pick something better than vomit and shit is the only alternative (in politics, not true, but shut up this is an example), then shit is still preferable and going "no, we should keep eating vomit until something that actually tastes nice comes along" is stupid.
Shit is a scale (I'm not of the view the USSR was better than what we have now) but it's absolutely ridiculous to say "Why did we get rid of feudalism? European social democracy isn't perfect so we shouldn't have bothered at all!" which is what your argument often sounds like.
Capitalism and communism are very extreme examples here, though. Generally you're choosing between two political parties. (Who are again basically shit and vomit, with any "nice tasting" party being unelectable.)
>>874711
If eating shit is indeed better than eating vomit then there is literally nothing wrong with arguing in this way
>>874759
Absent a third option to eat nourishing food of course.
>>874759
Except eating shit is objectively not better than anything unless you're some sick fuck. Wait, you're a communist so you actually are a sick fuck, nevermind.
>>874756
Are you a Russian?
>>874766
>eating shit is not better than being disembowled
>eating shit is not better than your family being murdered
>eating shit is not better than the extinction of the human race
>>874770
Nope. I'm not sure how you could infer that from my post, since I imply I'm from a country with a semi-functioning democracy.
(For reference, it's Britain.)
>>874766
Except you implied eating shit is better than eating vomit. Do you like eating vomit? are you some kind of equally sick fuck?
>>874789
You said "USSR was better than what we have now", I assumed the "we" part refers to Russians.
>>874808
Ah, that's quite reasonable. I was using "we" to refer broadly to the western world.
>>874805
The point is that when someone complains about the taste of shit, instead of defending shit the commies just use a NO U argument and criticize vomit.
>>874815
Because many of the people whining about the taste of shit are often those who prefer the taste of vomit, and are simply trying to make vomit look better.
There is room for internal criticism of an idea, and for outside questioning too, but there are also cases of outsiders simply trying to make you look bad by trying to get you to admit you aren't perfect while not mentioning their own imperfection. (meanwhile their own side isn't admitting any flaws, so the idiot on the street goes "hey, even shit-eaters say shit tastes horrible, meanwhile mr. vomit isn't saying anything. guess vomit is better...")
>>874815
Capitalism and Communism are not going to present in their characteristic forms at the same time.
The issue is that you must choose.
Pointing out that one's weaknesses are greater is just as valid as pointing out strengths.
>>874840
Should probably add that while I use capitalism/communism in my examples, the majority of my thinking is governed by western elections.
Sometimes doing bad things or making hard choices is necessary, but you're going to sound unelectable horrible to the average person if you admit that. That's part of why it's so popular to deflect rather than to admit it - because if you admit it and the other guy lies, he looks like a naive but nice idiot, while you look like some kind of cruel madman.
>>868571
People let their beliefs and ideology define themselves. When you question someone's beliefs of course they will get angry or make stupid points to defend it. It's better to have discussions about others ideology with those who can be open minded and accept when they don't know or don't have an answer.
