Forum Replies Created
-
2 users thanked author for this post.
I think that’s a reference to Laurel Hubbard who managed to compete in Olympic weightlifting, despite being unfit, less practiced and twice the age of the other female competitors.
Poor choice of language, which I wouldn’t use, but LK’s message is not objectionable. Men have a significant advantage over women and it’s not bigoted to think that women should have fairness, unless you think women are beneath men in worthiness of respect.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It wasn’t Ollie’s place to say anything to Nelson in my opinion, it’s a strange choice if true from a club who only got promoted last season.
He has also got them 4 promotions in 7 years. If a manager took Maidenhead to the Championship he’d attract interest from a Premier League club.
Of course it’s a gamble, but he has more pedigree than is being made out, as if he’s some average non-league manager who only has Peterborough Sports midtable. Look at the context. If Maidenhead were midtable in the Championship it would be a massive achievement. One worthy of a shot at a bigger club.
Yet people are trying to make out Dean’s record is worse than it is. I get that this is harsh on Nelson, who has done well with us so far, and I wouldn’t have been against Nelson at all. However, his record is poorer than Dean’s really. If these things are concerns for Dean, then they should be for Nelson too, surely? Yes, we’re playing better now, but it’s only been a month or so.
I don’t think any choice for full time role will be anything but a gamble.
2 users thanked author for this post.
On the contrary, has 4 promotions in 7 seasons. A newly promoted club is not necessarily going to rip up the league, but he has done well so far with them.
Meanwhile Nelson’s only previous full time coaching role is getting Blyth into the relegation spots in NLN. On the basis of track record Dean trumps Nelson.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It has nothing to do with the Beeb though or modern journalism. It’s an obvious flaw in an argument style, which can be shown to be flawed with basic logical reasoning. It doesn’t originate from there, and dates back to the 1970s. My point is that it’s a bad argument against any topic, left wing or right, because of the reasons I have laid out. The term doesn’t matter, responding to a point with “what about x?” is a logical fallacy, because it doesn’t counteract any of the points.
If you check my original point you picked up on wasn’t in response to you, because you hadn’t commented in the thread before me. I referred to Tory politicians, which I don’t think you are, so my point stands. I se “what about x or y?” being used all the time when anything gets criticised. And it does come across as deflection. So, no, I am not changing my original point. It’s a bad argument style. Saying what about x or y is a poor argument against a point is hardly daft, unless you can somehow show that valid arguments can be discounted by what others do. Which I would argue to be daft.
For those interested, the term whataboutery dates back to the early 1970s. It dates back to an Irish Times piece when they used the term to describe IRA arguments when confronted with questions about their terror tactics. The Irish journalist said that whenever he or others asked an IRA member about this they’d say “sure, but what about the Loyalist attacks on Catholics” or “sure, but what about bloody Sunday and British atrocities against the Irish?” He, correctly noted, that this did nothing to answer why IRA terror tactics are valid and just served as deflection and an excuse. It then caught on and people started using it to describe other situations, similar to this. It was commonly charged against communists who would always respond to Soviet Union wrongs with “well, you can’t criticise, because you excuse American problems.” None of this gives any argument as to why it’s ok for IRA terror or Soviet crimes, which is why it’s a logical fallacy. I have done and will continue to raise eyebrows and disregard such whatabouting nonsense, no matter the source, because it’s not a logical counteraction to an argument. Remember, the point you picked up on was not linked with you, and you have argued the toss about it, so I can only conclude you think anyone saying “what about x?” is some wondrous technique to argue against criticism, despite its lack of logical premise. Saying this, and thinking about it, does not make me superior to anyone else or whatever straw man you want to keep setting up.
In the academic scheme of things it is part of the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy. If it is somehow wrong to use academic terms, I apologise, but it doesn’t take away the issue of the problem, which everyone can understand. The fact is that “what about x?” is a tedious and flawed argument style. It doesn’t make me elitist or snobbish to point this out, but I do find refusals to engage with the reasons why and glib dismissals, as if they can never be wrong, to be a rather elitist point of view.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I think Lee needs to do a mea culpa and apologise first. I’m all for forgiveness once he has tried to rebuild bridges.
3 users thanked author for this post.
It didn’t take long for Sturgeon’s stupidity to catch up with her now a violent male, claiming to be a woman, has been housed in a women’s prison and she’s scrambling around trying to reverse ferret. So, now transwomen are women, unless they’re a rapist who embarrasses Sturgeon. She’s have been quite happy with this at any other time, but is now rambling on about risk assessment checks.
If transwomen are women, and we’re all bigots for thinking otherwise, why do they need risk assessment checks? They would be automatically put in the women’s prison. It just shows that they know males pose a risk to women, no matter what they identify as, and all this faux-outrage at ‘transphobia’ is just an attempt to silence cognitive dissonance while they push through the unacceptable.
For the record, here is the photo of the rapist, who I am showing such disgusting anti-trans bigotry against:
This is what people have complained about for years, only to be called bigots.
2 users thanked author for this post.
The point is that a CEO of a professional football club cannot be seen to be in any way condoning the breaking of ground regulations.
What if he turned a blind eye to the following ones for instance?
“Racial, homophobic or discriminatory abuse, chanting or harassment is strictly forbidden
and will result in arrest and/or ejection from the Ground.”
“The use of threatening behaviour, foul or abusive language is strictly forbidden and will result
in arrest and/or ejection from the Ground.”I think most understood he couldn’t condone the protests, but we expected more understanding in the wording. Plus, not nonsense about police door knocks when the police haven’t done such or were planning on doing such.
5 users thanked author for this post.
On the counter, after years of gloom, we’re allowed a moment of relief and happiness.
3 users thanked author for this post.
This is what I mean, Heath. It may not always be the intention, but every time someone plays the what about x tactic it just comes across as deflection. I couldn’t care less if x is Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, atheists, Christians, Muslims, elves, orcs or sugar plum fairies, the charge of what the other side does offers no defence for the miscreant.
I would have a better time believing it wasn’t to deflect from criticism if it wasn’t made in response to valid complaints. It’s why so many who do have the intention to obfuscate and distract use this argument in a debate. It doesn’t matter what Labour do or have done, it’s still wrong for Zahawi to do this (the same would be true for any Labour MP caught in a genuine sleaze scandal and what about Tories?) and we don’t create a better society by forever wagging fingers about what the other side do.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m certainly not defending him.
As for “what about Labour”, Siderite, you’re completely missing the point. It has nothing at all to do with being an ‘apologist’. The plain truth is that politicians in all parties do shady things. The idea that Labour politicians are better is nonsense, just as it’s nonsense to claim that socialists are the only ones who want a “better world”.
I’m quite sure that when Starmer becomes PM all sorts of stuff will come out of the Labour woodwork.
Whataboutery is a known logical fallacy, so I am not missing the point, nor am I saying it’s only from Tories. The point you gleefully miss (unsurpisingly, as you have all the self-awareness and critique of a goldfish), is that all accusations of what about Labour do nothing to address the problems at hand.
For example, at the weekend some transactivists in Glasgow had placards threatening violence against women (“I eat TERFs” “Decapitate TERFS”). Nicola Sturgeon condemned the ‘violence on both sides’ in response. Yet there are no both sides in this instance, just as there is no both sides to the corruption of Zahawi. Pointing out hypothetical problems on another side does nothing to justify problems on your own and those using it do so to deflect from their own problems.
Just look at Labour anti-Semitism. It was ludicrous that Corbyn and his supporters deflected by saying “what about Tory Islamophobia?” None of that justified Labour anti-Semitism, yet according to the Bucks theory of debating this is some killer point. It isn’t, and those using it always look like apologists for their own side’s misgivings. Don’t like that? Tough, I am not obliged to think a common debating style you use is good, and many people do use it in the same manner to deflect and distract.
I have never said Labour politicians are inherently better or only after a better world. If you bothered to read my response to 64 you would see I disagreed with that point. However, that doesn’t suit your agenda as to how everyone on here is averse to criticising Labour and thinking we’re above everyone else (which is ironic). Some Labour are better than Tory, some Tory are better than Labour. Obviously I lean more to Labour thinking, so have more of a positive mindset towards Labour MP ideas. However, this does not make me ‘dubious’. It’s politically correct drivel to have to both sides everything and pretend we have an equal opinion of both.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m no fan of Trump, in fact I can’t stand the man. The problem is that Biden’s as big a liar as Trump.
lol. Both sides nonsense.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Those who rally against the BBC usually prefer some unevidenced crank, like Neil Oliver, rabbiting away. The BBC isn’t without its problems, but it’s damn better than the ‘expertise’ many critics want.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m bored of politicians trying to ride out scandals, which put them in untenable positions, while their apologists say “what about Labour?” As if that is a defence.
There used to be some consequence for such matters in previous Tory and Labour governments. Now, post-Johnson there’s the endless wriggling, shrugging of shoulders and comments about how others are just as bad or are hypocrites. Meanwhile nothing gets done about the misdeed, it gets lost in the messy defence.
All their defences do nothing to actually justify such scandals, it’s all about how others do it too or critics are too stupid to understand how their deeds are actually above boat. None of it gives any kind of justification and the party who preaches personal responsibility to the public, and how we shouldn’t rely on welfare or whatever for ‘personal responsibility’, never have any personal responsibility themselves.
1 user thanked author for this post.
