The world's largest green hydrogen project, which generates hydrogen from solar and wind renewables without emitting carbon dioxide, produced its first batch of "green hydrogen" on Thursday in Ordos, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in north China.
Calling whataboutism is a logical fallacy used to justify having different standards for yourself and your adversaries. Anybody using whataboutism in place of an actual can be safely dismissed as a troll. Meanwhile, western media is certainly no less biased than CGTN and has been caught lying about China repeatedly.
Calling whataboutism is a logical fallacy used to justify having different standards for yourself and your adversaries. Anybody using whataboutism in place of an actual can be safely dismissed as a troll. Meanwhile, western media is certainly no less biased than CGTN and has been caught lying about China repeatedly.
What are you on? Whataboutism is not a logical fallacy. We are talking about the bias of CGTN, and you say “what about western media?” Yeah western media are also biased, but it doesn’t take away the fact that CGTN is a heavily biased media outlet, highly biased towards positive chinese news. I never mentioned any western media or said they were superior, but to avoid talking about this difficult topic, you change the narrative. Did I mention anything about western media? No! Because that’s not the topic.
Whataboutism is not a logical fallacy. Far from it. Whataboutism has been heavily documented as a propaganda technique by many sociologists and rhetoric scientists:
The actual propaganda technique is calling whataboutism when confronted with the fact that you’re being a hypocrite. It’s a well known technique used to deflect any criticism of the US regime.
The fallacy of screeching whataboutism is in the use of a double standard for oneself and ones adversaries. If you screech that CGTN has bias, while similar level of bias exists in western media then what exactly is the point you’re making.
In fact, simply screeching that CGTN has bias without addressing the content of the article is a form of ad hominem fallacy. You are dismissing the content of the article by attacking the source and claiming that it’s biased. You didn’t actually engage with the topic at all or show what this supposed bias is in relation to the topic. All your comment attempts to do is to shut down discussion because by attacking the source.
This is just whataboutism. Talking about the US doesn’t remove any critique of china. We were talking about China here. And CGTN (the news source which was linked) has a documented bias towards china
Calling whataboutism is a logical fallacy used to justify having different standards for yourself and your adversaries. Anybody using whataboutism in place of an actual can be safely dismissed as a troll. Meanwhile, western media is certainly no less biased than CGTN and has been caught lying about China repeatedly.
What are you on? Whataboutism is not a logical fallacy. We are talking about the bias of CGTN, and you say “what about western media?” Yeah western media are also biased, but it doesn’t take away the fact that CGTN is a heavily biased media outlet, highly biased towards positive chinese news. I never mentioned any western media or said they were superior, but to avoid talking about this difficult topic, you change the narrative. Did I mention anything about western media? No! Because that’s not the topic.
Whataboutism is not a logical fallacy. Far from it. Whataboutism has been heavily documented as a propaganda technique by many sociologists and rhetoric scientists:
The actual propaganda technique is calling whataboutism when confronted with the fact that you’re being a hypocrite. It’s a well known technique used to deflect any criticism of the US regime.
The fallacy of screeching whataboutism is in the use of a double standard for oneself and ones adversaries. If you screech that CGTN has bias, while similar level of bias exists in western media then what exactly is the point you’re making.
In fact, simply screeching that CGTN has bias without addressing the content of the article is a form of ad hominem fallacy. You are dismissing the content of the article by attacking the source and claiming that it’s biased. You didn’t actually engage with the topic at all or show what this supposed bias is in relation to the topic. All your comment attempts to do is to shut down discussion because by attacking the source.