• chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    • yetiftw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • yetiftw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          3 months ago

          how is a concern about upending precedent a nonsensical statement? the source of an argument does not impact its validity as a point