The western “left” has recently come out of their shell and completely give up hiding the face they support the modern murderous empires, replacing the word “tankie” with “commie” has shown that their mindset is just the same as your average Cold War era racist American. Whataboutism as mentioned is a great example, as any mention of the literal hundreds at this point of invasions and destruction of developing countries for resources and influence will have swarms of “leftists” coming into their defense, at best maybe saying “That’s bad too, but-”. I’ve heard some self-proclaimed socialists, more than one, say things around the lines of “America has some problems, sure, but if you support (any AES country) you’re a fuckin’ loser.” Completely indistinguishable from anything the far right would say. It has killed my hope in the leftist unity ideal, and if the hope were to rekindle it wouldn’t come from westerners.

西方左是不行了和我的迎接个。

Citations Needed published a great episode about this a few years ago. There’s a sort of subconscious effort to characterize the phenomenon as somehow ‘Soviet’ or otherwise ‘un‐American’ when it’s really just a natural byproduct of noticing inconsistencies.

Despite being mentioned so frequently today, I’ve been having an extremely difficult time actually finding particular examples of Soviets dismissing accusations of human rights abuses by simply changing the subject, either to lynchings in the U.S. or something else. Supposedly they pulled this maneuver almost all the time, and yet drudging through Google Books for examples (“are lynching” + Soviet) from 1917 to 1991 reveal no relevant results — no quotations from Soviets using this rhetorical maneuver or even somebody mentioning a Soviet doing it. The Soviets did indeed discuss the phenomenon, but so far I haven’t found an actual example of them mentioning it as a means of changing the subject, even though they supposedly did this very frequently.

I feel liberals pin a tab with Wikipedia’s page for logical fallcies in their browsers and whenever a statement makes them uncomfortable, they just look for a fallacy that coupd vaguely fit the situation and use that to tautologically discard all arguments.

Haven’t read this yet bit bookmarking for later.

whataboutism is a kind of denial to actually hear. whatabouters are deaf and blind. In NYT articles’ comments’ section, where people mostly from Africa, India and other more free countries question openly, simply and reasonably the narrative, that is talk with facts and not theories, whatabouters almost always end up bullying in some way, most often racially. Constant propaganda, misinformation, nebulus sources and phanaticism, thats what is needed to create a nazi. If anyone ever wondered how was it possible for people to fall for - or at least not react to - such atrocities. It seems that there’s a certain point where the individual is just not able to handdle the truth. whataboutism comes at hand first. Though the real nazi - believers are not whatabouters. Real nazi - believers end up - guess where - against communism. Those guys seem like they were “created” to be in nature anti - communists, something like the orcs. It almost seems as if their racism is only an excuse, thats not the main point. it almost freaks me out to think that Nazis were actually “created” through certain propaganda, and for a cause. : //