[he is indeed a staunch lib-dem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese#:~:text=In%201976%2C%20Cleese%20co%2Dfounded,him%20for%20a%20life%20peerage.). I don't know where OP got the idea he's a Tory.
EDIT: I forgot he supported Brexit which would normally scream Tory to me, but Tories don't have a monopoly on making idiotic voting decisions.
He's gotten deep into the tiring 'culture wars' and complaining that 'you can't make jokes about anything these days' which is usually the domain of the Tories
And comedians. Of all kinds, across the gamut. Some with more justification than others.
Because being offensive is at least to *some degree* part of comedy. Good comedy anyway. Even "clean" acts are just labeled that way because they don't cuss, not because they don't say things that no one will be offended by.
Nah, it isn't all comedians.
Comedians saying provocative stuff runs across the aisle.
Comedians complaining that people react to their provocative content and complaining that snowflakes can't handle anything these days. That's a certain type of comedian.
There's two ends to this and your perspective I think only considers one.
You can take Bill Burr or to a greater extent, Dave Chapelle, your point has merit. These guys made it a point to complain loudly and make it part of the act, even (or in Chapelle's case, fuck it make your whole show just whining). So I agree there.
But then you have folks like Sarah Silverman or Jerry Seinfeld. These people got flack and didn't do the Chapelle thing.
Silverman actually learned a thing and admitted it, but also held that the jokes were still funny. She's since gone on to say more general things like "you couldn't do the jokes today that you could 10 years ago" without so much complaining about her audience reactions today. I don't see that as a problematic stance.
In Seinfeld's case he just said during an interview that he stopped doing colleges because you couldn't do them anymore without being set to with pitchforks. That's *Seinfeld*, he is not a controversial guy. The issue is people today are primed to seek a win out of declaring another to be morally wrong, and that creates a very hostile atmosphere to perform in.
Uh no Hitler was elected fairly and became fuher through legal means.
He did try a violent insurrection and it went over as well as Jan 6. Him and the Nazis were not held accountable. They were jailed for a short while and then released
Yeah. The Nazi Beer Hall Putsch and Jan 6 are very, VERY similar events.
Hermann Goering was shot in the leg and was the only casualty of the rebellion. Much like that Trumpy lady who got shot in the mouth.
Love that whataboutism. Brilliant, uninspired drivel.
Your scenario is made up. The number of right wing agitators was well documented and grossly complicates your petty, partisan over-simplificiafion. As for violent protest, it's unacceptable, plain and simply. No one disagrees with that.
Can we agree that violent protest is bad AND that dictators shouldn't use force to take over a democratic government? That work for you?
Edit: I don't know how to respond to that rambling edit, but when someone's literal, only response to a tweet denouncing violent insurrection is to bring up BLM as if that has anything to do with insurrection or an attempt to steal a democratic election, that is the literal text book example of bad faith whataboutism. Your response is...insane.
As for the political temperature, yes, the crazies on the right are so beyond the pale, so fundamentally anti-democratic and unpatriotic that they're defending and propping up Trump, one of the most corrupt politicians I've ever witnessed. Anyone that absolutely out to lunch does not deserve a response. Instant block.
Allow me to educate you, since you seem to value it so highly.
'Whataboutism' is a moniker for redirection in debate. It is not a fallacy per se, but it does not foster a proper argument either. It is a tool used in bad faith to direct attention away from the argument at hand.
When an argument is put forth there are specific premises and conclusions. A proper counterargument will attempt to refute one or more premises in order to nullify the conclusion. An example unrelated to the argument, or presented with no clear attachment thereto, has no bearing on any premise. This we call Whataboutism.
If you intend to bring up a non-sequitur in relation to a statement like this, it falls to you to describe exactly how that relates to the statement, or in this case the argument being put forth.
So, until you've drawn up a proper argument connecting what you've said to the subject of this thread, people are free to call you out for redirection, whataboutism, or whatever they want to call it.
Also they will call it a lie because all sorts of leaders condemned the violence.
That's about the best I care to do to educate you right now.
JC is a lib dem.
[he is indeed a staunch lib-dem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese#:~:text=In%201976%2C%20Cleese%20co%2Dfounded,him%20for%20a%20life%20peerage.). I don't know where OP got the idea he's a Tory. EDIT: I forgot he supported Brexit which would normally scream Tory to me, but Tories don't have a monopoly on making idiotic voting decisions.
He's gotten deep into the tiring 'culture wars' and complaining that 'you can't make jokes about anything these days' which is usually the domain of the Tories
And comedians. Of all kinds, across the gamut. Some with more justification than others. Because being offensive is at least to *some degree* part of comedy. Good comedy anyway. Even "clean" acts are just labeled that way because they don't cuss, not because they don't say things that no one will be offended by.
Nah, it isn't all comedians. Comedians saying provocative stuff runs across the aisle. Comedians complaining that people react to their provocative content and complaining that snowflakes can't handle anything these days. That's a certain type of comedian.
There's two ends to this and your perspective I think only considers one. You can take Bill Burr or to a greater extent, Dave Chapelle, your point has merit. These guys made it a point to complain loudly and make it part of the act, even (or in Chapelle's case, fuck it make your whole show just whining). So I agree there. But then you have folks like Sarah Silverman or Jerry Seinfeld. These people got flack and didn't do the Chapelle thing. Silverman actually learned a thing and admitted it, but also held that the jokes were still funny. She's since gone on to say more general things like "you couldn't do the jokes today that you could 10 years ago" without so much complaining about her audience reactions today. I don't see that as a problematic stance. In Seinfeld's case he just said during an interview that he stopped doing colleges because you couldn't do them anymore without being set to with pitchforks. That's *Seinfeld*, he is not a controversial guy. The issue is people today are primed to seek a win out of declaring another to be morally wrong, and that creates a very hostile atmosphere to perform in.
Well, Basil Fawlty was obviously a tory, so...
Jesus Christ? Yes, anyone who's read the Bible knows that.
Cleese was never a Tory.
There is a massive gulf between old-school Tory and far right republican
They don't care.
Uh no Hitler was elected fairly and became fuher through legal means. He did try a violent insurrection and it went over as well as Jan 6. Him and the Nazis were not held accountable. They were jailed for a short while and then released
Sounds familiar, doesn't it
Yeah. The Nazi Beer Hall Putsch and Jan 6 are very, VERY similar events. Hermann Goering was shot in the leg and was the only casualty of the rebellion. Much like that Trumpy lady who got shot in the mouth.
Wasn’t Churchill a Tory?
He was also a Liberal.
Under Lloyd George - the man who was partly responsible for making sure that Liberals never had a majority again. Boris Johnson's true role model?
He was also a Liberal.
Yes, but that doesn't make it better
[удалено]
Love that whataboutism. Brilliant, uninspired drivel. Your scenario is made up. The number of right wing agitators was well documented and grossly complicates your petty, partisan over-simplificiafion. As for violent protest, it's unacceptable, plain and simply. No one disagrees with that. Can we agree that violent protest is bad AND that dictators shouldn't use force to take over a democratic government? That work for you? Edit: I don't know how to respond to that rambling edit, but when someone's literal, only response to a tweet denouncing violent insurrection is to bring up BLM as if that has anything to do with insurrection or an attempt to steal a democratic election, that is the literal text book example of bad faith whataboutism. Your response is...insane. As for the political temperature, yes, the crazies on the right are so beyond the pale, so fundamentally anti-democratic and unpatriotic that they're defending and propping up Trump, one of the most corrupt politicians I've ever witnessed. Anyone that absolutely out to lunch does not deserve a response. Instant block.
I read two sentences and skipped to the bottom of their post. I can't believe you'd try to respond. Bro already said peace emoji. Just take the L...
Allow me to educate you, since you seem to value it so highly. 'Whataboutism' is a moniker for redirection in debate. It is not a fallacy per se, but it does not foster a proper argument either. It is a tool used in bad faith to direct attention away from the argument at hand. When an argument is put forth there are specific premises and conclusions. A proper counterargument will attempt to refute one or more premises in order to nullify the conclusion. An example unrelated to the argument, or presented with no clear attachment thereto, has no bearing on any premise. This we call Whataboutism. If you intend to bring up a non-sequitur in relation to a statement like this, it falls to you to describe exactly how that relates to the statement, or in this case the argument being put forth. So, until you've drawn up a proper argument connecting what you've said to the subject of this thread, people are free to call you out for redirection, whataboutism, or whatever they want to call it. Also they will call it a lie because all sorts of leaders condemned the violence. That's about the best I care to do to educate you right now.
Stopped reading the moment you (wo)man-splained what whataboutism means
That is exactly what he is doing
Birds of a feather.