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.

  • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Sentrovasi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ormr@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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.