I'm know as quite the prolific Awimb poster on here

[redgunamo]

But nor does that mean it is ok that only one side gets punished.

Right. If everyone's doing it, only punishing one side is bound to lead to a measure of bitterness and resentment.

[Burney]

Right. If everyone's doing it, only punishing one side is bound to lead to a measure of bitterness and resentment.

Sorry, but that sort of thinking is what leads to people thinking the British have no right to criticise the Germans for murdering 6 million people in camps because we invented the concentration camp. It's patent bullsh1t.

[redgunamo]

Sorry, but that sort of thinking is what leads to people thinking the British have no right to criticise the Germans for murdering 6 million people in camps because we invented the concentration camp. It's patent bullsh1t.

The Germans don't think it's bull****. Diversity, innit.

[Ash]

Sorry, but that sort of thinking is what leads to people thinking the British have no right to criticise the Germans for murdering 6 million people in camps because we invented the concentration camp. It's patent bullsh1t.

We got to the Nazis in about four posts. Top Godwinisation there. A straw man too, as concentration camps per se do not imply genocide, just detainment.

[redgunamo]

concentration camps per se do not imply genocide, just detainment.

They do if the Germans are in charge of them though, that's the point. Their view is, if a job is to be done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly*. None of this namby-pamby, half-hearted, Let George do it! stuff.

Just different strokes, isn't it.


*As the man sort of said.

[Burney]

We got to the Nazis in about four posts. Top Godwinisation there. A straw man too, as concentration camps per se do not imply genocide, just detainment.

The crapness of the comparison is the point, though. It's how 'whataboutery' works - a deliberate attempt to mitigate, deflect from and avoid taking responsibility for one's own wrongs by trying to undermine your accuser's moral position. The classic was always the Russians attempting to deflect criticism of their oppressive regime by pointing out the plight of black people in the US. In other words, a reasonable point on the face of it, but utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. It's a rhetorical tactic that is entirely morally bankrupt.

If I were a thief, a murderer might denounce me as a thief, but the mere fact of him being a murderer would not in any way make me less of a thief or make my theft less heinous.

[redgunamo]

The crapness of the comparison is the point, though. It's how 'whataboutery' works - a deliberate attempt to mitigate, deflect from and avoid taking responsibility for one's own wrongs by trying to undermine your accuser's moral position. The classic was always the Russians attempting to deflect criticism of their oppressive regime by pointing out the plight of black people in the US. In other words, a reasonable point on the face of it, but utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. It's a rhetorical tactic that is entirely morally bankrupt.

If I were a thief, a murderer might denounce me as a thief, but the mere fact of him being a murderer would not in any way make me less of a thief or make my theft less heinous.

Yes, it would, *if* you, as a thief, were being judged by a jury of murderers.

Everyone's a sinner, baby. That's the truth.

[Ash]

The crapness of the comparison is the point, though. It's how 'whataboutery' works - a deliberate attempt to mitigate, deflect from and avoid taking responsibility for one's own wrongs by trying to undermine your accuser's moral position. The classic was always the Russians attempting to deflect criticism of their oppressive regime by pointing out the plight of black people in the US. In other words, a reasonable point on the face of it, but utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. It's a rhetorical tactic that is entirely morally bankrupt.

If I were a thief, a murderer might denounce me as a thief, but the mere fact of him being a murderer would not in any way make me less of a thief or make my theft less heinous.

Who decides which case is the case in hand? You? Or whoever gets their accusation in first?