未见跟可见区别是（何谓那又怎么说论）

未见跟可见区别是?ince President Donald Trump's political rise， pundits and news junkies have learned what seems like an entirely new vocabulary to discuss his rhetoric: gaslighting， alternative facts， fake news. What about whataboutism？，我来为大家科普一下关于未见跟可见区别是?以下内容希望对你有帮助!

未见跟可见区别是

ince President Donald Trump's political rise， pundits and news junkies have learned what seems like an entirely new vocabulary to discuss his rhetoric: gaslighting， alternative facts， fake news. What about whataboutism？

未见跟可见区别是（何谓那又怎么说论）

During a press conference on Tuesday， Trump spouted a textbook example of the practice. In addressing his tepid， vague denunciation of the protests that led to fatal violence in Charlottesville， Virginia， over the weekend， he responded， “What about the alt-left that came charging at， as you say， at the alt-right？ … You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent.” That is to say， neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members may be bad， but people on the other side have also done bad things. What about them？

Whataboutism refers to the practice of deflecting criticism by pointing to the misdeeds of others. Oxford Dictionaries defines it as “the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.”

Essentially， it's an appeal to hypocrisy — a logical fallacy also known as “tu quoque.” Instead of proving that your opponent's claim is wrong on its face， whataboutism argues that it's hypocritical of the opponent to make that claim at all.

Fears of impending whataboutism do not appear to have been exaggerated. Pundits have been noticing Trump's proclivity for the “what about” defense for months. Even since taking office， the president has been quick to respond to accusations of collusion or corruption by pointing to the alleged misdeeds of his former opponent， Hillary Clinton.

He's also resorted， weirdly enough， to the inverse. In a February interview， Bill O'Reilly challenged Trump on his support for Putin， calling him “a killer.” “There are a lot of killers，” retorted Trump. “You think our country's so innocent？” In a Foreign Policy column， Jake Sullivan explained what he was doing: “The American president is taking Putin's ‘what about you’ tactic and turning it into ‘what about us？’” If we can do it， Russia can; if Hillary can， so can I. It justifies anything Trump or his allies might want to do， somehow or another.

To be sure， hypocrisy is bad. The Soviets were not incorrect in pointing out that the countries that criticized them often harbored their own systemic human rights issues. It's no wonder that whataboutism exists， to some degree， on （as Trump would say） many sides.

Political supporters of every stripe are eager to hold opponents accountable for their double standards， and that is a human and， to some extent， good impulse — especially during a campaign， when making clear the actual distinctions between candidates is useful. It is， however， unusual for an American political leader to engage in the practice so frequently and blatantly; deflecting accountability is for surrogates and supporters， not elected officials themselves.

The problem with whataboutism is that hypocrisy is a durable problem （humans being flawed and inconsistent）， but it is not the only problem. Forever circling around each other's hypocrisies pulls us away from necessary conversations about how to reach for and enforce the values we aspire to and hold each other accountable for wrongdoing. This is particularly crucial when it comes to our leadership. With all the power of the American government behind him， the president has every responsibility to reach toward our most aspirational ideals. Whataboutism provides an excuse for our most powerful to evade self-reflection and self-improvement. That's not an excuse the American president needs — not now， not ever.

自从唐纳德·特朗普总统在政治上发迹，专家和新闻迷就学到一套似乎全新的词汇谈论他的辩术：煤气灯操纵，另类事实，假新闻。那么，“那又怎么说论”又怎么说？

对于这个套路，特朗普在周二举行的新闻发布会上喋喋不休地给出一个教科书般的例子。上周末，弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔发生的抗议引发暴力并致人死亡，而特朗普只做出半心半意、模棱两可的谴责。他对此的回应是：“那些朝着——像你说的——极右翼冲过来的极左翼又怎么说？……这边有一群坏人，但对面也有一群非常暴力的人。”换言之，新纳粹和三K党成员或许坏，但另一边的人也干了坏事。那又怎么说？

“那又怎么说论”指的是通过指责别人的错误来转移批评。牛津词典定义为“一种技巧或做法，在面对指责或棘手问题时，反过来指责对方或提出另一个问题”。

从根本上说，这是拿伪善说事——这是一种逻辑谬误，又称为“你也一样”（tu quoque为拉丁文，同英文you too——本报注）。“那又怎么说论”不去证明对手的说法显然错了，而是提出对手这样说根本是伪善。

对日益逼近的“那又怎么说论”的担心似乎不算夸张。若干个月以来，专家们早就注意到特朗普用“那又怎么说”为自己辩解的癖好。自上任以来，面对通俄或腐败的指控，他就立刻反过来指责前对手希拉里·克林顿的所谓违法行为。

相当怪异的是，他还逆向使用这种技术。在今年2月的一次采访中，比尔·奥莱利质疑特朗普支持普京的做法，把后者称作“杀人犯”。“杀人犯有很多，”特朗普反驳说。“你以为我们的国家就很无辜吗？”杰克·沙利文在《外交政策》发表的一篇专栏文章中解释特朗普的做法：“美国总统把普京的‘那你们呢’拿过来变成‘那我们呢’？”如果我们能这么干，俄罗斯也能，如果希拉里能这么干，我也能。这样一来，特朗普及其盟友想干的任何事情都有了理由，无论以哪种方式。

诚然，伪善有害。苏联人指责那些批评他们的国家自身也存在系统性的人权问题，这并没有错。难怪“那又怎么说论”（就像特朗普喜欢说的那样）某种程度上存在于多方身上。

未见跟可见区别是（何谓那又怎么说论）

各个政治派别的支持者都热切地要让对手为他们的双重标准负责，这是人类的正常念头，在某种程度上也是有益的念头，尤其是在竞选过程中，因为明确候选人之间的实际差别是有用的。然而，一位美国政治领导人如此频繁如此公然地采取这种做法却不正常，转移责任是代理人和支持者的事情，民选官员本人不能这么做。

“那又怎么说论”的问题在于，伪善是一个长期问题（人类有缺点而且反复无常），但伪善不是唯一问题。揪住彼此的伪善不放使我们无法开展必要的对话，去讨论如何争取并实施我们渴求的价值观并让彼此为错误承担责任。涉及领导人的时候，这尤其关键。总统代表着美国政府的所有权力，因此也负有全责，应该去追求我们最渴望的理想。“那又怎么说论”为最高掌权者提供了一种逃避自我反省和自我改善的借口。这不是美国总统需要的借口，现在不是，从来就不是。（赵菲菲译自美国赫芬顿邮报网站8月15日文章）

未见跟可见区别是（何谓那又怎么说论）

译注 “煤气灯操纵”指的是在目标个体或群体内心植入疑惑的种子，让对方怀疑自己的记忆、感觉和理智，从而对他们进行操控。这种说法源自1938年上演的戏剧《煤气灯下》，该剧后来被改编为电影，由英格丽·褒曼主演。剧中，丈夫用煤气灯在阁楼寻找宝物。妻子注意到微弱的灯光，但丈夫坚持说这是她的幻觉。妻子开始怀疑自己所见的现实，濒临疯狂，而丈夫对她的掌控力也随之增大。很多美国媒体评论说，特朗普正在对美国实施煤气灯操纵，是非颠倒，价值混乱，事实和真相都失去意义。