I’m not very caught up on the specifics but I do think it’s funny that the same people who chortle about Tiananmen and Chinese censorship on DeepSeek have nothing to say about the results you get from Gemini or ChatGPT if you ask about American politics (elections/politicians) or misbehavior (Gaza/Israel/Palestine) or even ask them to write something violent or sexual…
No, we’re “chortling” about both. You just wont see people discussing US censorship in a thread about CCP censorship, unless some asshat brings up a what-aboutism.
If the crux of your argument is based on an ethical or moral judgement you open yourself to whatsboutisms. Otherwise any time any one brings up hypocritical behavior it would be a fallacy.
On the other hand, if you simply observe a fact, like this censorship, people who bring up a whataboutism are actually engaging in strawmanning.
Tl;Dr whataboutisms are a disputed fallacy and it quite frankly it probably depends on context and motivation for whether it counts
My personal guideline is when it’s being used as a defense or excuse instead of a refutation of a claim (explicit or implicit) of moral or ethical superiority.
The fuck are you going on about? All I’m saying is is that the only reason you might hear about [topic x] in a thread about [topic y] is people deflecting.
Want to complain about American censorship? Make a new post. Plenty of things to complain about now. You’ll see plenty of the same people,
I’m not very caught up on the specifics but I do think it’s funny that the same people who chortle about Tiananmen and Chinese censorship on DeepSeek have nothing to say about the results you get from Gemini or ChatGPT if you ask about American politics (elections/politicians) or misbehavior (Gaza/Israel/Palestine) or even ask them to write something violent or sexual…
They have lots to say about the big corpo us models. There’s been 100s of articles on it.
No, we’re “chortling” about both. You just wont see people discussing US censorship in a thread about CCP censorship, unless some asshat brings up a what-aboutism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
If the crux of your argument is based on an ethical or moral judgement you open yourself to whatsboutisms. Otherwise any time any one brings up hypocritical behavior it would be a fallacy.
On the other hand, if you simply observe a fact, like this censorship, people who bring up a whataboutism are actually engaging in strawmanning.
Tl;Dr whataboutisms are a disputed fallacy and it quite frankly it probably depends on context and motivation for whether it counts
My personal guideline is when it’s being used as a defense or excuse instead of a refutation of a claim (explicit or implicit) of moral or ethical superiority.
The fuck are you going on about? All I’m saying is is that the only reason you might hear about [topic x] in a thread about [topic y] is people deflecting.
Want to complain about American censorship? Make a new post. Plenty of things to complain about now. You’ll see plenty of the same people,
The absolute state of reading comprehension in this country is shameful.
That’s fair; my interest is only passing and my experiences are limited.