The United States on Friday released a U.S. intelligence assessment sent to more than 100 countries that found Moscow is using spies, social media and Russian state-run media to erode public faith in the integrity of democratic elections worldwide.

The United States on Friday released a U.S. intelligence assessment sent to more than 100 countries that found Moscow is using spies, social media and Russian state-run media to erode public faith in the integrity of democratic elections worldwide.

“This is a global phenomenon,” said the assessment. “Our information indicates that senior Russian government officials, including the Kremlin, see value in this type of influence operation and perceive it to be effective.”

A senior State Department official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said that Russia was encouraged to intensify its election influence operations by its success in amplifying disinformation about the 2020 U.S. election and the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • @[email protected]English
    12•2 years ago

    Where is the place for whataboutism then? Never? When a narrative is being pushed in the media that is hypocritical, should we just accept it? People seem to think anyone critical of America is defending Russia/China or another country. I think it’s downright UN-American and negligent to never try to make the country you reside in live up to the standards it puts forth.

    • DranEnglish
      19•2 years ago

      The place is indeed “never”. Every action should be addressed in the vacuum of its own context. Whatabousims detract from the argument at hand and prevent a Socratic exchange from narrowing its scope sufficiently enough to reach a consensus of understanding.

      It’s not about deflecting hypocrisy, it’s about being able to have sane arguments in good faith.

      • @[email protected]English
        9•2 years ago

        Maybe have a Big Think?

        Protective mechanism

        Gina Schad sees the characterization of counterarguments as “whataboutism” as a lack of communicative competence, insofar as discussions are cut off by this accusation. The accusation of others of whataboutism is also used as an ideological protective mechanism that leads to “closures and echo chambers”.[98] The reference to “whataboutism” is also perceived as a “discussion stopper” “to secure a certain hegemony of discourse and interpretation.” Source

        • @[email protected]English
          5•2 years ago

          Thank you. This is far more coherent than what i wrote. I’m tired of seeing conversations shutdown or railroaded by people crying whataboutism.

    • Cosmic ClericEnglish
      33•2 years ago

      This isn’t the place for whataboutism.

      Where is the place for whataboutism then? Never?

      Well, you could start your own Lemmy post speaking specifically about the United States, instead of derailing this post talking about Russia.

    • proleEnglish
      12•2 years ago

      Whataboutism is like false choice and straw man combined. Not only is the suggestion that one needs to choose between being critical of Russia or US, that it’s either/or, but you’re also then implying that the person you’re replying to is making an argument in support of one of the things. That they can’t possibly believe both things to be bad.

      They are only talking about one BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.

      It’s fallacious, so yes, its time is never.

        • proleEnglish
          5•2 years ago

          Lol, caring about being rational is lame

          • @[email protected]English
            3•2 years ago

            If this were rational you wouldn’t be giving it so much energy. The whataboutism would have been dismissed and people would have moved on and focused on the article. The fact that the whataboutism worked shows just how irrational this is. It proves that the whataboutism is a valid point.

            • proleEnglish
              4•2 years ago

              How did it work. Do you think typing this comment takes a lot of energy? I’m not really invested in this at all.

      • Ann ArchyEnglish
        4•2 years ago

        It is called a false dichotomy:

        False Dichotomy is a formal fallacy based on an “either-or” type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true - or one is acceptable and the other is not. Often, there are other alternatives which haven’t been considered, or both choices might be false or true

        • proleEnglish
          1•2 years ago

          I am aware of what a false dichotomy is. Some people use it interchangeably with “false choice/dilemma”.

          Been years since I took a logic course, but here’s a link that talks about the differences:

          You might have heard the terms “false dichotomy” and “false analogy.” Both share similarities with the false dilemma fallacy. In fact, some people don’t make a distinction between a false dilemma and a false dichotomy. Those who make the distinction define a false dilemma as a fallacious argument that presents the two options as the only two options, while a false dichotomy is the misinformed belief that the two options presented are the only two options.

          https://www.grammarly.com/blog/false-dilemma-fallacy/

          • Ann ArchyEnglish
            1•2 years ago

            Oh, yeah no I just dropped that as a general FYI for anyone passing by not as engaging with the argument, I find a lot of people don’t know.

    • @[email protected]English
      13•2 years ago

      Yes, never is the correct answer. It’s cheap, obvious and condescending as fuck as well as being a total waste of time. The correct thing to do with whataboutism is to call it out and then ignore. Like what I am doing with you right now.