Sorta like making everything you disagree with Russian?

Julian Assange works for RT [1], which is the Russian state propaganda media [2], or was that a rhetorical question?

1. https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...

That's the entire political discourse these days, isn't it? X had dealing with, or "has connections" to Y, therefore everything Y does can be imputed to X.

There's a Russian behind every curtain! They're perhaps the most powerful country on earth! Literally everything (from Bernie to Jill Stein to Trump to the NRA) is Russina backed! ZOMG!

I'm guessing you haven't ever read anything about McCarthyism. https://theintercept.com/2017/02/23/the-increasingly-unhinge...

>Whatabout McCarthyism?

What about the founder of Wikileaks working for Russian propaganda media, which is what we're discussing here? I'm not sure what your motivation to deflect on this is.

How is he deflecting?

He's talking about McCarthyism, which is very relevant to the subject at hand.

Because it's a false equivalency. Nobody is accusing Julian Assange of something that he isn't guilty of, and it's attempting to change the subject when faced with the facts.

No, it's an element of political discourse that is entirely necessary. Given how cheap and effective this sort of tactic is in the current media and information landscape, why would someone interested in destabilizing a country not do it?

Well, you consider it to be cheap and effective -- in 2018.

But back in 2016: Obama said there was “no serious” person who would suggest it was possible to rig American elections, adding, “I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.” [0]

I wonder how public opinion shifted. Back in 2016, the idea of rigging elections with facebook ads was alex-jones-level of tinfoil conspiracy, and now we are discussing it as an obvious, cheap and effective tactic.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/obama-tells-...

Your election in 2000 was stolen with the help of technically faulty (at least) voting machines. The fact that the possibility was considered tinfoil conspiracy in 2016 just means that politicians are rather skilled at reassuring the public.

Obama probably felt that he would have damaged the democratic party by saying anything else.

Not everything but Wikileaks for sure.

Yep, it's also a known tactic for deflection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

...by using the latest, greatest new term to shut down debate and avoid addressing the concept of being intellectually honest.

Whataboutism isn't new, nor is it intellectually dishonest to point out when it's being used. Soviets started using it during the cold war era, and it's still in use as a deflection tactic today.

> Whataboutism isn't new

You are absolutely correct, however I would argue that it has only relatively recently entered the common HN lexicon. The vast majority (~675 out of 704^) of comments using it here in the comments are < 2 yrs old.

Admittedly the first comment on HN that used the term is 7 years old, but that comment [0] predates the creation of the wikipedia article (frequently trotted out when invoking the term here) by about a year.

As an aside, I'd love see a dataviz app that shows the lifecycle of terminology and memes that thrive in various internet discussion boards.

0) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2944345

^well it'll be 705 including this post ;)

Interesting timeframe on increased usage on HN. That may be correlated with the current president of the United States using it frequently: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Use_by_Donald_T...

Again, that still doesn't make it new or intellectually dishonest to point out.

Its also become a bit of a convenient shield for many to avoid confronting/admitting their own side's double-standards or bad-faith power politicking.

Not accusing you of the above, but "Whataboutism" is as old as double-standards it draws attention to. But IMHO the accusation is more often use for ill than for good.

It's a false dichotomy to assume that everyone has a "side", and pushing that is part of the deflection.