Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

Call me cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if that advertisement was planned to go that way. Do something way over the top, generate controversy, "get rid of" the 'people behind the advertizement' (scapegoats) while paying them off, and then bask in people now talking about your chain while being able to wash your hands of having any part in the controversy.

[Dunamisdeos]

BURGER JOINT is SO WOKE we would NEVER DO SUCH A BAD THING AT BURGER JOINT how unfortunate that BURGER JOINT was involved in such an unfortunate incident at BURGER JOINT where we sell DELICIOUS WOKE BURGERS.

[MorleyDev]

I can't help but think "There's no such thing as bad publicity" has gone from being used sarcastically in response to a fuck-up, to somewhere along the way losing the sarcasm and people start treating it as legitimate business advice...

[Trekkin]

I can't help but think "There's no such thing as bad publicity" has gone from being used sarcastically in response to a fuck-up, to somewhere along the way losing the sarcasm and people start treating it as legitimate business advice...

It has always been a stone's throw away from the backbone of Unique Selling Point dogma: consumers fit brand names more easily into their little heads than they do context, so they'll remember hearing about a company long after they've forgotten where from and whatever atrocity they committed. The Internet has only intensified the competition for memory, and so it remains a mantra for an desperate Madison Avenue to repeat to itself as click-through rates plummet.

It's also had new life breathed into it by our political hyperpolarization to the point where being loathed is a way to get the people disliking whoever hates your brand to buy it out of spite.

[MrRoboto75]

BURGER JOINT is SO WOKE we would NEVER DO SUCH A BAD THING AT BURGER JOINT how unfortunate that BURGER JOINT was involved in such an unfortunate incident at BURGER JOINT where we sell DELICIOUS WOKE BURGERS.

I'd like a WOKE BURG with BLUE (PILL) CHEESE

[hector13]

I can't help but think "There's no such thing as bad publicity" has gone from being used sarcastically in response to a fuck-up, to somewhere along the way losing the sarcasm and people start treating it as legitimate business advice...

There're always going to be people who go "that was cool and edgy" and go buy it, anyway.

[Folly]

And now Trump is tweeting that he's concerned the Russians will be meddling in the Democrats' favor in order to counteract him, the toughest President ever on Russia.

I just know this is going to promote decades of whataboutism. From now on, every time someone mentions Trump only being elected because of Russian meddling, the response from Republicans will be 'what about all the Democrats who only got elected because of Russian meddling?'.

[bloop_bleep]

Wow, I didn't realize that I was reading posts quite a few pages back when I replied.... Don't want to dredge up old topics so I removed it.

[smjjames]

And now Trump is tweeting that he's concerned the Russians will be meddling in the Democrats' favor in order to counteract him, the toughest President ever on Russia.

I just know this is going to promote decades of whataboutism. From now on, every time someone mentions Trump only being elected because of Russian meddling, the response from Republicans will be 'what about all the Democrats who only got elected because of Russian meddling?'.

Which would fit Putin’s plan to sow chaos perfectly. Whoever does the whataboutism is going to miss the point that Russia meddled.  Putin wouldn’t care if a randomican got elected President, his goal is just to sow chaos and the Democrats winning control of the House would fit his goals.

[bloop_bleep]

Also, I have to bring this up because I've been hearing a lot of stuff about it recently and some of it really annoys me -- so-called "whataboutism" makes a perfectly valid argument sometimes. The thing is, a lot of areas in which we have to make decisions are not absolute in their judgment, so pointing out places where the judgments are inconsistent is important to prevent double standards. Otherwise someone could start arguing about how black people are given worse sentences than white people for the same crimes in a certain court, and then their opponent could say, "Nope! You're using whataboutism! What those white people did doesn't decrease the severity of the crimes of those black people!"

Of course, this loses all meaning if the thing the whatabouter is pointing to isn't actually a true thing that happened, so referencing all those Democrats who supposedly were put into office by Russians (if said Democrats were not, actually, put into place by Russians) has no bearing whatsoever, as Folly said.

[Starver]

For a long time, right-leaning twitterers have been using the possibility of Russia meddling in the election (which is generally assumed to be by knobbling the voter opinions by false stories, rather than direct hacking¹) to support increased use of Voter Id (which doesn't protect eVoting booths, while it does suppress a certain range of voters that aren't genersl right-leaning).

That and the continued myth of 5 million or so illegal voters as an excuse for not getting the popular vote.


¹ There's evidence someone tried, but failed

[Folly]

Also, I have to bring this up because I've been hearing a lot of stuff about it recently and some of it really annoys me -- so-called "whataboutism" makes a perfectly valid argument sometimes. The thing is, a lot of areas in which we have to make decisions are not absolute in their judgment, so pointing out places where the judgments are inconsistent is important to prevent double standards. Otherwise someone could start arguing about how black people are given worse sentences than white people for the same crimes in a certain court, and then their opponent could say, "Nope! You're using whataboutism! What those white people did doesn't decrease the severity of the crimes of those black people!"

The problem with whataboutism is that it's used to justify bad behavior, rather than addressing it. If the white person got an unusually light sentence, measures need to be taken to ensure that everyone is given the sentence they deserve regardless of skin color. If the whataboutists have their way and everyone ends up getting light sentences, then it just promotes more crime.

[Lord Shonus]

While this is true, it is also extremely common to use "whataboutism" as an excuse to pretend problems don't exist. It is extremely easy to use "whataboutism" as a way to say "that isn't that common a problem, you're just using it to deflect attention" and never actually address the issue at all.

[misko27]

The phrasing here leaves me unable to tell whether or not use of whataboutism, or whether the word whataboutism itself, is being criticized.

My understanding of what makes whataboutism an -ism is that it is used with the specific goal of distraction. There's no example of an "innocent" case of whataboutism, since it exists specifically to defend something. In addition, it's an "Offensive defense", if that makes sense: it defends by attacking. The attack involved is usuallly true, but is often neither-here-nor-there, and isn't in good faith but a cynical attempt to put the opponent on the defense instead. The classic example is "And you are lynching negroes". Traditionally, it is known as Tu quoque, or "you also". Of course the thing that is whatabouted doesn't necessarily need to be morally equivalent.

It doesn't actually promote treating people lightly: They aren't actually promoting lenience or whatever, and whatabouters who compare soviet crimes to american hate would never do the same thing in reverse, since they on one side and not the other.

TL;DR: It's the principle of shouting "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!" only when you yourself are under threat, and being the most zealous slinger of stones the rest of the time.

[Dunamisdeos]

TL;DR: It's the principle of shouting "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!" only when you yourself are under threat, and being the most zealous slinger of stones the rest of the time.

That Bible verse was mistranslated, it's supposed to be "let other people who are without sin throw the first stone at me".

It must be by the way that everyone applies it to their lives.