Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.
Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.
The entire premise of the article is literally whataboutism
What? How? It’s discussing whether the victims of the bomb Oppenheimer created should be represented more. It’s a direct result of his actions and germane to the plot.
It’s not germane to the plot at all as the film is about him as a character and his experience, not about the bombing or the war more generally. His realisation of the distance he has from his victims and how he’s been forced out the loop once the bombs were finished is crucial to his arc in the later part of the film.
Yes… And the effect his weapon had on them isn’t relevant?
He is literally known for saying “now I am become death destroyer of worlds” and you don’t think showing that death is germane to the plot?
I’m not saying it should have been in the movie but it’s not “whataboutism” to say that it could have been. Unless you don’t know what whataboutism is.
Correct. It is not.
What about the victims of the bomb? Okay we put them in the movie. What about the victims of the Japanese? Okay we put them in the movie. What about what about what about
And now we just have a movie that’s a documentary on all of human history.
The movie is about the creation of the bomb. Stop.
That’s not… Whataboutism. Whataboutism is a tu quoque style counter-argument.
This article is just people discussing other things that could be in the film.
The “whatabout what the Japanese did?” is whataboutism. It’s a cheap diversionary tactic used by defensive people when a discussion makes them uncomfortable.
Whataboutism is a stupid concept in itself as this term is now hurled at anyone who wants to make a comparison or add some context to an argument. So I’d say using the word “whataboutism” isn’t helpful.
No. Whataboutism is lazy misdirection and nothing more. It’s not “providing context” it’s changing the subject. It’s weak and used by people who have no argument or defense for their position. “You too” is a logical fallacy for a reason.
That’s not what a whataboutism is, at least in common parlance. What the OP of this particular thread was saying, though, was. The idea is that people should aim to be better than lower common denominators.
Your version of “what about” as being about inclusion is strangely almost the exact opposite.