What About 'Whataboutism'?

[Stevicus]

I keep seeing threads where this term gets tossed about back and forth.

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

Usually, it's in the context of someone making a moral accusation against an individual, group, or government, countered by someone making an analogous moral accusation against an opposing individual, group, or government. This is perceived as an attempt at deflection from the original moral accusation, while not refuting or debunking said accusation. It is considered a variation of the tu quoque fallacy.

I would suggest that "whataboutism" or "tu quoque" would only be legitimately criticized and rejected in a court of law, where defendant A is on trial for some sort of criminal offense. If the only issue at hand is defendant A's guilt or innocence, then whataboutism would not be a relevant or valid defense.

But if it's a more general discussion about politics or values, then it's a different playing field with different rules.

If someone makes a moral accusation against another, then there's usually some larger implication and motive behind doing so - and that's what is being called into question with "whataboutism." The accusation is likely true and verifiable - and few would make any attempt to deny or defend against it.

Therefore, I would suggest that whataboutism is hardly an attempt at deflection, but rather an implied concession that the accusation is true...but so what? The kettle may be black, but why is the pot even bringing it up in the first place?

The article on Whataboutism also contained a part on criticism and those who defend its use. Whataboutism - Wikipedia

Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies.[138] They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard,[139] and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.[140]

It's interesting that only Americans consider "Whataboutism" to be a valid criticism, while most of the rest of the world does not.

 

[Flankerl]

Most people don't even know what "whataboutism" is and what qualifies for it.
They think whenever you make a comparison it's "whataboutism". Which is just wrong.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What about those situations where...uh...oh...never mind...

 

[bobhikes]

To be honest I think more people like the phrase then care about the definition. Whataboutism, funny easy to say and easily laughed off. American's like laughing at politicians and countries and the new's is so depressing Whataboutism caught on as funny way of dismissing depressing news.

Nobody changes there view with Whataboutisms.

 

[Altfish]

I've been accused of it a few times...unfairly I believe.
It is usually when one side of a political debate accuses the other side of doing exactly what the accuser's side has been doing for years. And I'm saying it's hypocritical and give an example.
"That's Whataboutism" comes the reply.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most people don't even know what "whataboutism" is and what qualifies for it.
They think whenever you make a comparison it's "whataboutism". Which is just wrong.

Look at you, getting all superior without actually saying anything.
I'll bet you're one of those "hipsters".

 

[exchemist]

I keep seeing threads where this term gets tossed about back and forth.

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

Usually, it's in the context of someone making a moral accusation against an individual, group, or government, countered by someone making an analogous moral accusation against an opposing individual, group, or government. This is perceived as an attempt at deflection from the original moral accusation, while not refuting or debunking said accusation. It is considered a variation of the tu quoque fallacy.

I would suggest that "whataboutism" or "tu quoque" would only be legitimately criticized and rejected in a court of law, where defendant A is on trial for some sort of criminal offense. If the only issue at hand is defendant A's guilt or innocence, then whataboutism would not be a relevant or valid defense.

But if it's a more general discussion about politics or values, then it's a different playing field with different rules.

If someone makes a moral accusation against another, then there's usually some larger implication and motive behind doing so - and that's what is being called into question with "whataboutism." The accusation is likely true and verifiable - and few would make any attempt to deny or defend against it.

Therefore, I would suggest that whataboutism is hardly an attempt at deflection, but rather an implied concession that the accusation is true...but so what? The kettle may be black, but why is the pot even bringing it up in the first place?

The article on Whataboutism also contained a part on criticism and those who defend its use. Whataboutism - Wikipedia



It's interesting that only Americans consider "Whataboutism" to be a valid criticism, while most of the rest of the world does not.

In the UK it is called "whataboutery" and is named after its practice in N Ireland: whataboutery - Wiktionary

I don't think anyone considers it a legitimate tool in argument, which is why it has been given this disparaging label.

It is an attempt to shift the terms of discussion from the point originally at issue to some sort of comparison of relative moral value of the two sides - a changing of the subject, in other words.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Many legitimate criticisms of double standards and hypocrisy get handwaved as "whataboutism", invariably by people misusing the term.

 

[Stevicus]

In the UK it is called "whataboutery" and is named after its practice in N Ireland: whataboutery - Wiktionary

I don't think anyone considers it a legitimate tool in argument, which is why it has been given this disparaging label.

It is an attempt to shift the terms of discussion from the point originally at issue to some sort of comparison of relative moral value of the two sides - a changing of the subject, in other words.

Well, yes, it does change the subject. Or perhaps it questions the implications underlying a given accusation or argument. If someone makes a moral accusation against their opponents' side, then it carries the implied claim that "our side is better" - and that's what is being challenged.

 

[Revoltingest]

Many legitimate criticisms of double standards and hypocrisy get handwaved as "whataboutism", invariably by people misusing the term.

The most fun is when one who uses it frequently is caught at it.
How could I not call'm on it, eh.

 

[exchemist]

Well, yes, it does change the subject. Or perhaps it questions the implications underlying a given accusation or argument. If someone makes a moral accusation against their opponents' side, then it carries the implied claim that "our side is better" - and that's what is being challenged.

Yes but the classic use of whataboutery is something like this: Russia annexes Crimea and when the US objects they say "you invaded Iraq". There is a children's expression that encapsulates why this is not a valid argument: "Two wrongs don't make a right".

 

[Stevicus]

Yes but the classic use of whataboutery is something like this: Russia annexes Crimea and when the US objects they say "you invaded Iraq". There is a children's expression that encapsulates why this is not a valid argument: "Two wrongs don't make a right".

I'm not sure if they actually said "you invaded Iraq" as a counter to criticism over Crimea. They might have, but I don't recall specifically.

I don't think "two wrongs don't make a right" would really work here anyway, since that's often used in the context of retaliation or revenge - where the two wrongs are connected to each other.

Another children's expression which encapsulates why it might be a valid argument: "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

 

[Revoltingest]

Whataboutery (sounds better than whataboutism) seems a chimera....
I know you are but what am I throwing stones in 2 glass houses don't make a right hey look over there.

 

[Jumi]

What about it?

 

[Audie]

Many legitimate criticisms of double standards and hypocrisy get handwaved as "whataboutism", invariably by people misusing the term.

Often enough it is legit to point out that an individual
is applying double standards.

What is really-really tiresome is for people to pick
what they fancy is an example of same, and say
look, this proves them Democrats / Republicans /
Christians / atheists are (gas, shudder)
hypocrites!!!!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Often enough it is legit to point out that an individual
is applying double standards.

What is really-really tiresome is for people to pick
what they fancy is an example of same, and say
look, this proves them Democrats / Republicans /
Christians / atheists are (gas, shudder)
hypocrites!!!!

If they are, in fact, hypocritical, it should be called out.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they are, in fact, hypocritical, it should be called out.

Is it motive dependent, ie, mere whataboutery if the motive is to distract,
or cromulent if pointing out hypocrisy is needed?

 

[Audie]

If they are, in fact, hypocritical, it should be called out.

Didnt say otherwise

 

[Stevicus]

Is it motive dependent, ie, mere whataboutery if the motive is to distract,
or cromulent if pointing out hypocrisy is needed?

I would say it's motive dependent from both sides of the argument. It's dependent on why someone would make an accusation in the first place.

Mr. Pot: Hey Kettle, you're black!
Mr. Kettle: Well...what about yourself? You're black, too.
Mr. Pot: Don't try to change the subject.

But why would someone bring up a subject - and then try to purposely box in and confine the discussion to their own specific accusation that they themselves brought up?

 

[Revoltingest]

I would say it's motive dependent from both sides of the argument. It's dependent on why someone would make an accusation in the first place.

Mr. Pot: Hey Kettle, you're black!
Mr. Kettle: Well...what about yourself? You're black, too.
Mr. Pot: Don't try to change the subject.

But why would someone bring up a subject - and then try to purposely box in and confine the discussion to their own specific accusation that they themselves brought up?

In other words, whataboutery will continue to be
done & criticized, with everyone feeling justified.
That explains RF.