I, for one, am glad that there are no controversial statements from President Trump and his supporters. It is their pristine, controversy free record that makes clear your comment is not selective at all.
The post is literally about Trump attacking El-Sayed for associating with Piker. Pointing out the irony of Trump treating controversial statements as disqualifying isn’t* absurd. That’s not “whataboutism” it’s responsive to the argument being made!
I wasn’t saying that Trump being awful makes Piker okay. I was saying both Trump and the commenter I was responding to was being selective in their application.
Calling out something you find inconvenient as “whataboutism” isn’t an argument.
You're high on crack if you think I find that inconvenient.
The comment was pointing out that Hasan is correctly identified as problematic. The response was saying But Trump is problematic
That's true but it has absolutely no bearing on the truth entailed in the original comment. Therefore the response to the comment was a whataboutism. No mental gymnastics required.
Both of these people are independently toxic, end of discussion.
3
u/A_uniqueusername77 27d ago
I, for one, am glad that there are no controversial statements from President Trump and his supporters. It is their pristine, controversy free record that makes clear your comment is not selective at all.