Timeline for Does New York restrict voting more than Georgia's new law?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2021 at 12:54 | comment | added | sgf | The claim is a combination of cherry picking, whataboutism, and lies about election security. It might be worth it to point out that the claim is a combination of cherry picking, whataboutism, lies about election security and truth. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 22:42 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | @Schwern that’s whataboutism! :) | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 3:34 | comment | added | Schwern | Does anyone have anything to say about the other six pages of the answer? | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 3:00 | comment | added | Acccumulation | It's not whataboutism to claim that the occurrence of something in one place is being highlighted and new of its occurrence in another place is being suppressed. If a newspaper were to constantly report on the crimes of black people, and never mention crimes committed by white people, would it be "whataboutism" to call them on it? | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 3:00 | comment | added | Acccumulation | If the argument is that Georgia has an especially harsh law (and that certainly does seem to be the case), then it's not whataboutism. Whataboutism is when one tries to distract by bringing up a different issue, not other instances of the same issue. Would you still call it whataboutism if the claims were made about CO rather than NY? Furthermore, the implied argument of the tweet is accusing liberals of cherry-picking; liberals, the tweet implies, are not actually trying to promote voting rights, but attacking red states. | |
| Apr 15, 2021 at 3:00 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "The claim is a combination of cherry picking, whataboutism, and lies about election security." Only one of those is a legitimate criticism. Besides the question of whether cherry picking and whataboutism applies not answering the question of whether the claims are true, the charge of cherry picking would require showing that the particular issues addressed are not matters brought up by critics of Georgia's law. The charge of whataboutism would require identifying what argument is being made against the Georgia law and showing that it is not addressed by mentioning NY's law. | |
| Apr 13, 2021 at 17:47 | comment | added | henning no longer feeds AI | If you want to be extra careful wether or not to call the argument "whataboutism" you could call it a tu quoque argument, which is also a fallacy. | |
| Apr 12, 2021 at 7:24 | comment | added | days of love iff good genes | @PaulDraper: yeah, well, next time I see a Q of yours being DV and with 3 pending close votes for lacking detail, I shan't bother to turn it from an exchange of fact-free diatribes/jabs into something that might be suitable to this site. | |
| Apr 10, 2021 at 0:33 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | The links for "whataboutism" and "cherrypicking" do not back up the claims of it being whataboutism or cherrypicking, but merely go to a definition of these terms. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 22:29 | comment | added | Schwern | @fredsbend I've reworked the opening now that I've read the original context. Thanks for working with me on it. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 22:29 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Rework the opening based on the original context.
|
| Apr 9, 2021 at 22:26 | comment | added | user11643 | @Schwern Except NY was offered as an alternative for the MLB ... "Comparing GA against national trends would be informative." At least we agree it is rotten and what would make it not. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 22:22 | comment | added | Schwern | @fredsbend The original context is "New York’s voting laws are far more restrictive than Georgia’s by almost any measure so what would such a move say about the MLB’s values? and how many people realize that fact based on the current coverage?" It's the focus on the criticism, not the restrictions, which makes the whole thing rotten. Comparing GA against national trends would be informative. "Hey NY, you're still behind GA. Get off your ass!" is an argument that NY should improve. "Hey MLB, what about NY?!" is whataboutism to deflect from GA's actions. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 21:48 | comment | added | user11643 | @Schwern Indeed, GA is accountable for it's choices, something no one denies, including GA. That GA's choices are similar to other states and other states are not criticized for it seems a valid complaint to me. Compared to invalid complaints (e.g. NY has high taxes), it's an issue of understanding the criticism pointed at GA without acknowledgement that their new restrictions aren't outside the norm. A criticism of the norm, and then highlighting GA would make more sense, but that's not how it's framed. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 21:45 | history | edited | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarify the cherry picking and whataboutism.
|
| Apr 9, 2021 at 21:43 | comment | added | Schwern | @fredsbend Yes, coming up with a single "X state is more strict than Y" is subjective by which restrictions you pick and how they are weighed. To be more objective I covered the claims, the regulations, and where NY and Georgia are moving relative to themselves. Whatever the outcome, it remains that the claimant picked NY to make a point. That's the whataboutism: "you're boycotting GA, but what about NY?!" GA remains accountable for their choices no matter what NY or corporations do. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 21:30 | comment | added | user11643 | Whataboutism is not what you call it when one accused party complains that another party doing the same thing be not accused. This is just plainly not "whataboutism". Whataboutism would be something like GA responding with "Well, in NY they have more crime and taxes are stupid high." You can see quickly how that's a non-retort. But responding "NY has restrictions higher than our own [true in some ways], but corporations aren't boycotting them" is clearly a complaint about equal treatment with items that are in the same category. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 21:28 | comment | added | user11643 | I like how much detail you've put into this answer. Well done. However, I'd quibble with your "cherry pick" and "whataboutism" labels. In as much as it's a cherry pick, sort of kind of, but the details of your answer clearly show several areas where NY is more restrictive than GA. Looking at all the voting restrictions in aggregate in each state is difficult to combine into a single "more/less" label, and perhaps subject to much personal bias. That they picked NY as their example isn't at all odd, since they're kind of the Democratic state (except maybe California). | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 21:22 | comment | added | user11643 | I had to remove some value judgements from this answer. Mostly, I've had to make some statements neutral (e.g. exchanging "better" for "less restrictive"), but did have to delete a few complete sentences as they were much closer to opinion than anything else. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 21:19 | history | edited | user11643 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
We don't do value judgements on Skeptics, and especially regarding politics.
|
| Apr 9, 2021 at 14:45 | comment | added | Paul Draper | An SE user modified my post (users here seem really intent on bastardizing questions), whose quoted claims were in direct response to public statements by the US Senate Majority Leader, who is a long-time senator from New York. It wasn't some random choice from 49 other states. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 13:12 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | Describing the comparison with NY as cherry-picking is an assumption. Considering that a prominent NY politician (governor or mayor, can’t remember which) was criticising Georgia’s law, and there’s talk of moving from Atlanta to NY, I’d say it wasn’t a case of someone poring over all the blue states and finding the one with the worst record. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 11:39 | history | edited | Laurel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 9, 2021 at 7:50 | history | answered | Schwern | CC BY-SA 4.0 |