Pedantic Digressions

The National Trust for Scotland is a different organisation than Historic Scotland. The National Trust is a charity that takes over historic buildings the owners of which can’t pay the upkeep for anymore, and makes them available to the public. Historic Scotland used to be a government agency that cared for and made publicly accessible historic buildings and estates that belonged to the Scottish state. However, Historic Scotland doesn’t exist anymore, it was consolidated into Historic Environment Scotland together with the
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.

4 Likes

Oh my goodness, you’re absolutely right, of course! My wife used to work for RCAHMS and all, and we’re members of both NTS and HES! Dear oh dear oh dear.

2 Likes

Eh, an easy, and inconsequential mistake to make

1 Like

was going to call out the bit about Millennials until I got the joke, that Generation X doesn’t exist

2 Likes

I think the author is confusing whataboutism, bothsidism, and tu quoque. And in debates in current international developments the difference is important.

Whataboutism is a tactic, a diversion from the actual topic. They should be ignored because the opponent is in no way interested in answering the question and will come up with another one the second you engage.

Bothsidism is usually a fallacy of false equivalence. If the equivalence is not false bothsidism is not a fallacy but it might be an attempt at derailment. Any real life example I can think off will be a hot potato that might blow up so… When Cardassians blamed Bajorians for using violence to achieve their goals that was bothsidism, pointing out that when the Dominion took over Cardessia it was the same thing that what Cardessia did to Bajor it was not bothsidism.

Of course thinking that this defends the actions by the Dominion on Cardessia would be a tu quoque fallacy.

Tu quoque is the fallacy if thinking that hypocrisy negates a truth, strictly speaking it is a pure non sequitur as the actual argument is not addressed at all. If I would blame somebody for being overweight that would be hypocritical but pointing out that I am as well as a counter argument would be a fallacy.

1 Like

There’s no confusion, as the conjunction “or” (highlighted below for your benefit) and separate Wikipedia definition links in the original post indicate:

These, and tu quoque arguments are all closely related fallacies regularly used by apologists for the Putin regime. Feel free to use whichever one applies to a particular line of BS.

8 Likes

I believe that bothsidesism is less of a false equivalency, and more of a false premise to the effect of “one cannot denounce something that is wrong unless one also denounces everything that is wrong.” The thrust of the argument then becomes: “You are not denouncing [something bad that somebody else did], so [the thing done] is either not wrong or you are applying a double standard in your denunciation.”

Not only is the premise patently wrong, but the unspoken assumption (i.e. that “you are not denouncing [something bad that somebody else did]”) is also untrue (because it leaves out the key words: “right now”).

4 Likes

There’s a certain degree of crossover between different fallacies, which sometimes fit together like puzzle pieces. For example, you could link the Nirvana fallacy and its impossible demand for total perfection as an outcome to your description of Bothsidesism.

I think this discussion is getting a bit off-topic. Distinctions are important, but this topic was started in anticipation of several possible bad-faith fallacious arguments specifically concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you and others would like to discuss different fallacies in general further I will be glad to split off this discussion for you. Otherwise I can leave things as they stand and let things get back to the main discussion.

2 Likes

No, I don’t think that is necessary. Suffice it to say that we can adeptly respond to bothsidesism by saying simply, “Two wrongs do not make a right, and I never said that [thing] wasn’t wrong, but I’m more concerned about the wrong that is going on right now in front of our eyes, so let’s focus on that for now.”

6 Likes

That’s a lectern

A podium is something you stand on

9 Likes

Now we’re talking!

12 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

Think Which One GIF

2 Likes

dean winchester wink GIF

To be accurate, thinking carefully about something does not imply pedantry.

1 Like

Should be eg, not ie.

Or really, e.g.

6 Likes

I Know Right Tonight Show GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

Not “refudiate”? :thinking:

1 Like

fewer

5 Likes