this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
191 points (83.0% liked)

World News

32378 readers
513 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it's complicated.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What about the victims of the bomb? Okay we put them in the movie. What about the victims of the Japanese? Okay we put them in the movie. What about what about what about

And now we just have a movie that's a documentary on all of human history.

The movie is about the creation of the bomb. Stop.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about the victims of the bomb

That's not... Whataboutism. Whataboutism is a tu quoque style counter-argument.

This article is just people discussing other things that could be in the film.

The "whatabout what the Japanese did?" is whataboutism. It's a cheap diversionary tactic used by defensive people when a discussion makes them uncomfortable.

[–] runblack@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whataboutism is a stupid concept in itself as this term is now hurled at anyone who wants to make a comparison or add some context to an argument. So I'd say using the word "whataboutism" isn't helpful.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

No. Whataboutism is lazy misdirection and nothing more. It's not "providing context" it's changing the subject. It's weak and used by people who have no argument or defense for their position. "You too" is a logical fallacy for a reason.

[–] Sentrovasi@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

That's not what a whataboutism is, at least in common parlance. What the OP of this particular thread was saying, though, was. The idea is that people should aim to be better than lower common denominators.

Your version of "what about" as being about inclusion is strangely almost the exact opposite.