AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

Scrolling back up, not sure I read your first comment correctly, but it does still apply. A politician is charged with doing the right thing (as if they ever actually do), not following their emotional desires. It's unclear if you meant "the people who voted for a fascist felon" in terms of the public at large or just the Trump voters, though that applies either way (I know, we don't like being merciful to bad people). I do think encouraging retribution, at the expense of the wellbeing of a society, is actively harmful, I don't think that's ethical, which is what I was pointing out about your comment, not trying to discredit your argument by saying you're being hypocritical, which is what "tu quoque"/"whataboutism" would actually be. Now, you responding to my comment saying, "well OP/the artist have their politics dictated by emotion", that is a perfect example of whataboutism, because instead of acknowledging or even examining the criticism, you're just saying the same thing is true about someone else. So no, what I said was not more "whataboutism" then your statement.

I really don't like this thing on social media where somebody will make a completely incorrect argument and then it's like there's an expectation placed on you to go back and point out all the problems with what they said. Can we literally get like, just the basic mechanics of logic out of the way? Having to spend time establishing this shit is insane.