Nice big urban square, lined with beautiful historical buildings.
What do you think of the Uyghurs?
You don’t meet them too often, but the ones I met were nice people.
Did the URSS create famines?
Famines in the USSR were caused by a multitude of factors - drought and (civil) war being the most prominent. The war was brought to the USSR by outside forces - the whites where financed by the UK and the US, WWII was brought to the USSR by Germany. So famine in the USSR was created by western forces more than anything.
After 1947 there were no known famines. Since famines were a regular occurrence before we can conclude that the Soviets effectively ended famines in their territory by then.
That’s literally not whataboutism - whataboutism is when you use irrelevant topics to incorrectly prove a point. The poster literally said it was a litmus test, which means mentioning multiple things as they did is correct and is not whataboutism, especially since their argument is about propaganda.
No, it’s really not. Once they said “litmus test”, that makes it clear they’re doing it intentionally, not as a logical fallacy - it’s gauging bias on common topics, which is relevant to a discussion on bias and propaganda. It’s not a series of seemingly-related non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I’d love to be proven wrong here - how is what they brought up not relevant to the topic of bias and propaganda, especially wrt the west?
Oh, it’s definitely ad-hominem, that I agree with - they were literally testing your biases, as they stated. I don’t think it’s whataboutism, just ad hominem, actually. They’re accusing you of being as biased as anyone else, then asking a shibboleth to prove their point - the whole premise is ad hominem at that point. I think the differentiating factor is that the questions were about your beliefs, not about the actual events they brought up.
You’re right! I thought the meaning of whataboutism was more specific than it was, you just have to respond to an accusation with another accusation, that’s it! TIL
Okay lets do the litmus test:
What do you think of tianmen square?
What do you think of the Uyghurs?
Did the URSS create famines?
Edit: i sure riled up a bunch of tankies 😂
Nice big urban square, lined with beautiful historical buildings.
You don’t meet them too often, but the ones I met were nice people.
Famines in the USSR were caused by a multitude of factors - drought and (civil) war being the most prominent. The war was brought to the USSR by outside forces - the whites where financed by the UK and the US, WWII was brought to the USSR by Germany. So famine in the USSR was created by western forces more than anything.
After 1947 there were no known famines. Since famines were a regular occurrence before we can conclude that the Soviets effectively ended famines in their territory by then.
No /s anywhere to be found.
Edit: forgot to look at which server I was on.
No need to be sarcastic when they’re right.
Take it as a learning opportunity, and maybe consider reading a book some time
Removed by mod
Tiananmen*
Whataboutism
Whataboutism
Whataboutism
That’s literally not whataboutism - whataboutism is when you use irrelevant topics to incorrectly prove a point. The poster literally said it was a litmus test, which means mentioning multiple things as they did is correct and is not whataboutism, especially since their argument is about propaganda.
Yes, which is exactly what they did.
No, it’s really not. Once they said “litmus test”, that makes it clear they’re doing it intentionally, not as a logical fallacy - it’s gauging bias on common topics, which is relevant to a discussion on bias and propaganda. It’s not a series of seemingly-related non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I’d love to be proven wrong here - how is what they brought up not relevant to the topic of bias and propaganda, especially wrt the west?
Running some McCarthyist “litmus test” is irrelevant to what I said. At best it’s whataboutism, at worst it’s just fishing for an ad-hominem.
Literally 100% or instances of liberals using the term whataboutism are them referring to something that is relevant to the general topic.
Oh, it’s definitely ad-hominem, that I agree with - they were literally testing your biases, as they stated. I don’t think it’s whataboutism, just ad hominem, actually. They’re accusing you of being as biased as anyone else, then asking a shibboleth to prove their point - the whole premise is ad hominem at that point. I think the differentiating factor is that the questions were about your beliefs, not about the actual events they brought up.
An ad-hominem is whataboutism: “Whatabout this thing that’s bad about you!” It’s an attempt to distract from the point with an irrelevant distraction.
You’re right! I thought the meaning of whataboutism was more specific than it was, you just have to respond to an accusation with another accusation, that’s it! TIL
Removed by mod