I have a real problem with this term, especially as it's now being used by the alt-right to shut down any conversation. It's completely fine to say "this side does this, that side does that". It's completely fine to point out that other people have flaws as well. Not every mention of the opposing viewpoint is whataboutism. Whataboutism is a diversionary tactic designed to deflect the conversation away from your flaws and onto someone else's flaws.
It's super easy to shut down whataboutism. I say "you're a bad person", they come back and say "what about these other bad people" and I say "yes, they're bad too but let's keep talking about you right now". If they say "no no that's not fair, these other guys are bad", that's whataboutism. If the conversation continues like normal, then it's just a normal conversation.
You're wrong. The conversation doesn't just "move on". Derailing it from the get go with bullshit points that have nothing to do with the original discussion is detrimental in in of itself.
It's an old soviet tactic now being used by internet trolls. Those of us that know history see right through it and roll our eyes.
The problem is "whataboutism" is the new Godwin's Law. It's used to stop any conversation that the other person doesn't like. It had a good run until the alt-right realized they could use it too, and use it anywhere and everywhere. And when they use it, the other person has to stop talking, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card for neo-nazis and internet trolls.
I was having a conversation about the lack of response from the president on the Minnesota mosque bombing the other day and mentioned that they had time to talk about the Bowling Green Massacre story that was made up out of whole cloth by the administration, and the guy I was talking to said "oh so whataboutism is your only response?" His argument was basically "if you mention anything other than the exact topic we're talking about right now, it's whataboutism and your argument is invalid". But that's not true, and it's not even a valid use of the word "whataboutism". It's been co-opted and corrupted by these fascists who realized that if we use it, the conversation stops. So they can use it to stop the conversation too.
You have to understand that with a lot of these people, the conversation will never move on. You try to shift the conversation back, and if they don't let it then you move on. But crying "whataboutism!" and expecting something magical to happen... it doesn't. It won't. It never will again. They've learned that tactic and incorporated it into their strategy and it has lost all of its power. Now whenever I see someone using the word "whataboutism" to shut down a conversation, I can't help but wonder if they themselves aren't an alt-right fascist troll.
Remember when Godwin's Law could control a conversation on the Internet? But now if you say it everyone just laughs at you. That's where "whataboutism" is very quickly heading.
> if they evict right wing groups meeting, why don't they do the same to left wing anarchist groups?
They were not evicted for being right-wing; they were evicted for violating the Community Pledge: in order to use the platform, you have to agree to "accept people regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age."
Plenty of right-wing people can do that just fine. Plenty of left-wing people cannot.
Unite the Right has taken it as a point of doctrine not to "punch right," by which they mean that whether or not they personally believe in rejecting people based on race, sex, religion, cultural origin, etc., they will march with those who do against a perceived "common enemy." This is not common right-wing behavior; in fact the Republican primaries featured serious questions on whether to kill baby Hitler, taking it as granted that killing adult Hitler was a moral imperative. Unite the Right would ally with adult Hitler to win the war against their "common enemy," and then maybe consider rationally debating him later.
The ability to follow the Community Pledge isn't a left/right distinction, and you're misrepresenting the right wing (although probably not the "alt-right") by claiming that it is.
> The true is I believe they should not involve themselves in politics as it never ends good.
Airbnb is inextricably involved in politics because their entire business model is literally illegal in most of the places they operate. The process of convincing politicians to change that is called politics.
I once saw an apartment for rent where host mentioned only vegans are allowed. I wonder if accepting people regardless of their food preference should be part of Community Pledge.
Would they evict the lesbians who've been tossing Jews out of pride parades (which is no joke, it happened in my town)? Or do they evict the Jews?
Shouldn't they evict all Pride March leadership since Black Lives Matter have been stopping Pride parades due to allegations of systematic racism? Or do they evict BLM for stopping Pride parades?
Would they evict the professors of Evergreen who students claim are guilty of systematic oppression? Or do they evict the students who were patrolling campus with baseball bats?
Shouldn't they evict all white men, since all white men are guilty of participating in colonialism and patriarchy? Or do they evict all white men, since white men supposedly got Trump elected (something the statistics very much dispute- Trump made gains in several demographics)?
This is a very slippery slope in these times.
If the leaders of AirBnB were the white nationalists, and they were tossing out their opponents following white nationalist policy, everyone would say the white nationalists deserve harsh retribution.
The policy itself doesn't matter. The politics do. And yes, AurBnB has to play politics. I'd wager they saw a couple markets where they hope to keep a foothold for being "the good guys" instead of an illegal business in violation of various local ordinances on innkeeping.
This is really just an attempt to inject Twitter drama into the discussion. Obviously, it is not a common position among lesbians to eject people from their parades for carrying Jewish pride flags† --- one way you know that is it was a lesbian who was ejected from the parade.
You're criticizing one small LGBT subgroup, but misrepresenting them as the whole LGBT community. Which in the context of this discussion is just an attempt to muddy the water. Please don't do that.
(that, by the way, is what got them ejected --- being perceived as vocally pro-Israel --- not "for being Jewish". Plenty of Jewish people are anti-Israel.)
> in fact the Republican primaries featured serious questions on whether to kill baby Hitler, taking it as granted that killing adult Hitler was a moral imperative.
It's not worth to take part in such worthless philosophical debates in my opinion. They do not add anything to the society or solve any important modern day problems.
> their entire business model is literally illegal in most of the places they operate.
If that's true their website should be shut down in countries where it's banned.
> It's not worth to take part in such worthless philosophical debates in my opinion. They do not add anything to the society or solve any important modern day problems.
I agree, but I was not defending these debates, just giving evidence for my claim that a common position in the mainstream right wing is that Hitler is worth fighting.
> If that's true their website should be shut down in countries where it's banned.
I agree with this too, but law enforcement is not always effective at stopping well-funded companies blitzing through regulations (VCs call this phenomenon "disruption").
Any kind of extremism, be it from right or from left, should be banned and legally prosecuted in any civilized and democratic country, by the law enforcement and not by individuals or private companies.
If someone destroys your property during a protest or if he/she puts your family in potential physical danger, this person is an extremist in my book.
Seems that some people take my comment too literally. I meant in a DEMOCRATIC society. If you are living in a Dictatorship all bets are off.
OK then, but who draws the lines on what's extremism?
Do you have to want to overthrow the government? What about just heavily reform it?
What lines on immigration policy would put you under prosecution, Total ban? Muslim Ban? Point system?
I have no support at all for white nationalism but it's insane and counterproductive for big "service-like" companies to be enforcing their own political correctness through bans.
> OK then, but who draws the lines on what's extremism?
They do, considering it's their business.
It's not as abstract as you think it is. This clearly violates their ToS.
"In 2016 we established the Airbnb Community Commitment reflecting our belief that to make good on our mission of belonging, those who are members of the Airbnb community accept people regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age,"
> I have no support at all for white nationalism
But you do when a private company doesn't want to do business with them? I am sure you will try to generalize this incident as giving fuel to potential future oppression against humanitarians, revolutionists and what not... but that is only relevant if they really do that in practice, and they don't.
> What lines on immigration policy would put you under prosecution, Total ban? Muslim Ban? Point system?
You are projecting your own thoughts on my previous comment. I honestly had no idea it can interpreted like this ... read it again and if you see any suggestion that I would condone any kind of ban based on religion, gender or skin color I will ban myself from HN.
The problem is: who gets to define extremism? It may seem pretty clear cut to you in this particular instance, but it's a slippery slope. In the US, Republicans may want to label Democrats as extremists, and vice versa. We've already seen it happen with groups like Black Lives Matters. This is why -- in the US -- we have the first amendment and defend it so vigorously (ideally).
I remember when during inauguration those brats wearing all black came and burned cars, trash cans in the street and a bunch of other vandalism.
Though I think they ended up with pretty steep charges, it turns out rioting in DC is not like in other cities and carries pretty heavy penalties.