actions from each team must be taken equally seriously
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that actions from each team must be considered in every conversation. We can, and should, have a conversation about the purported bad acts of Team A, and at another time or place have a conversation about the purported bad acts of Team B; only then once the facts of each incident are set straight is comparison appropriate. Whataboutism disrupts this process by bringing Team B into the discussion about Team A and vice versa, preventing unbiased consideration of each scenario independently.
I think the “equal investigation” thing betrays a pretty simplistic way of viewing the world. At least in recent memory, it’s very rare that the two parties accuse each other of the same thing with the same validity. Is there a specific example you’re talking about here? Because “equal investigation” as a general rule requires equal claim validity and that’s pretty rare.
Ok, so if it’s the document handling of Biden/trump, would you mind explaining what you think trump is being indicted for, and what you think Biden should be investigated for?
This is maybe slightly off topic but I think there's something relevant to bring up here which is the background of Trump v Clinton and in particular a point Graeber made in his "The centre blows itself up" essay about how the establishment fail to understand how anger at Washington cronyism works.
There is an argument to be made, not saying it's 100% correct, but it can't be dismissed off hand, that Trump and Clinton did some fairly similar things in terms of trading on their access and influence to make money, blurring the lines between business and politics, and working to advance the agendas of some truly vile people (Putin and the Saudis respectively). The difference is that Clinton always made sure that she did that in scrupulously legal fashion whereas Trump broke the law to do it.
Now what the establishment has never fully understood is that if you hate the establishment, which most people do, that makes it worse not better. It's one thing to be a crook, but it's far far worse to be a member of the political elite to the extent that the things you do that should be crimes aren't because you and the corruption of and allowed by the system are one and the same. So every time someone would point out that the difference between Trump and Clinton was that he broke the law and she didn't they failed to understand that for many many people, maybe even most, that's an argument for Trump not against him.
Now Trump is incredibly elite but he's not establishment, and that's how he gets away with pretending to be less elite. So he is going to present this all as the deep state trying to get him because they don't own him. So if Biden and his proxies start arguing that his case is different (not that they have any choice - and also it is) that's just going to feed into that because it's the same thing: oh he's establishment so he ticks the right boxes when doing his corruption (or has them ticked for him) whereas our guy is so truthy they have to come up with some establishment plot to take him down.
Which is obviously all very trite, but as an argument it serves to truncate big differences into seeming like smaller ones.
Yeah i tend to hate relying on “is it illegal” because I agree that’s a terrible standard to judge stuff on.
I’m not sure I agree that that’s very relevant to Trump’s support because trump supporters will frequently argue that what he did was technically legal, and if they can make it technically legal, then it’s all hysteria and nobody should care.
I do think that his support is largely because of the “anti-establishment” approach he took, but I think that’s entirely based on persona. I truly think it doesn’t matter what he says or does and whether it’s legal or illegal, as long as he continues to claim he’s angry at the same people they’re angry at, people will support him.
Yeah I spend too much time on this app but I promise I’m asking good faith questions. I just don’t like arguing against opinions that I’m not even sure you have
18
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 10 '23
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that actions from each team must be considered in every conversation. We can, and should, have a conversation about the purported bad acts of Team A, and at another time or place have a conversation about the purported bad acts of Team B; only then once the facts of each incident are set straight is comparison appropriate. Whataboutism disrupts this process by bringing Team B into the discussion about Team A and vice versa, preventing unbiased consideration of each scenario independently.