What About 'Whataboutism'?

[LuisDantas]

"Whataboutism" is very much a reality here in Brazil.

Without it, Bozo would never have been raised to President of Brazil.

 

[Morning Star Dhamma]

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

Is this true? Source? I also would find it interesting that only Americans consider "whataboutism" to be valid criticism. I have seen "whataboutism" deployed by people from various parts of the world.

 

[Cooky]

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.

I prefer the phrase "tit for tat", which means the same thing but sounds much sexier.

...It predates "whatoboutism" by hundreds of years too. At least.

 

[Cooky]

Or maybe it means something very similar... IDK. Either way, both are stupid.

 

[Cooky]

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

Not necessarily. For instance, when discussing Islam, everyone always brings up Chriatianity. Essentially, nobody can criticize Islam ever.

 

[Revoltingest]

I prefer the phrase "tit for tat", which means the same thing but sounds much sexier.
...It predates "whatoboutism" by hundreds of years too. At least.

You're so old school.

 

[Stevicus]

Is this true? Source? I also would find it interesting that only Americans consider "whataboutism" to be valid criticism. I have seen "whataboutism" deployed by people from various parts of the world.

It was observed in the Wiki article I quoted in the OP.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Those of us who were raised by parents who taught us, "If Billy jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" would know to criticize it every time it appears.

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.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Rather, it carries the implied claim that "they did it, so why shouldn't we?"

 

[Revoltingest]

Rather, it carries the implied claim that "they did it, so why shouldn't we?"

Or....
"You can't criticize us....look over there!"

 

[Stevicus]

Those of us who were raised by parents who taught us, "If Billy jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" would know to criticize it every time it appears.

But even in your analogy, it still ignores the main issue. Unless they were Billy's parents, what business is it of theirs what Billy does? Why would they make comments or pass judgment on Billy, when they have no business doing so?

 

[Stevicus]

Rather, it carries the implied claim that "they did it, so why shouldn't we?"

I read it more as a challenge of "who are you to judge us?"

Or as religion might put it, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (just as long as they're not in a glass house while doing it).

 

[Willamena]

But even in your analogy, it still ignores the main issue. Unless they were Billy's parents, what business is it of theirs what Billy does? Why would they make comments or pass judgment on Billy, when they have no business doing so?

It is literally none of their business what Billy does, and that's not the point.

The moral is that we are each responsible for our own thoughts, our own actions, our own judgements, and our own deeds. To point at another doing the same thing says nothing in regards to the issue at hand, nothing other than "he did it, so why can't I?"

 

[Stevicus]

It is literally none of their business what Billy does, and that's not the point.

No, it's precisely the point.

The moral is that we are each responsible for our own thoughts, our own actions, our own judgements, and our own deeds. To point at another doing the same thing says nothing in regards to the issue at hand, nothing other than "he did it, so why can't I?"

What is the "issue at hand"? As I stated earlier, unless someone has actual legal authority to pursue and prosecute a legal or moral accusation, then they have no business bringing up any "issue at hand."

The fact that some random accuser feels that they have the right to make an idle accusation and then further tries to define the parameters and box in the argument for their own convenience - that's simply arrogance and hypocrisy (not to mention intellectual dishonesty) - and that's the "issue at hand." Do you deny this?

 

[Willamena]

No, it's precisely the point.



What is the "issue at hand"? As I stated earlier, unless someone has actual legal authority to pursue and prosecute a legal or moral accusation, then they have no business bringing up any "issue at hand."

The fact that some random accuser feels that they have the right to make an idle accusation and then further tries to define the parameters and box in the argument for their own convenience - that's simply arrogance and hypocrisy (not to mention intellectual dishonesty) - and that's the "issue at hand." Do you deny this?

Who is the "random accuser?" I'm confused. Nothing about Whataboutism is random.

The "issue at hand" that I referenced was the duty to address the argument made, rather than point fingers.

 

[Stevicus]

Who is the "random accuser?" I'm confused. Nothing about Whataboutism is random.

The "issue at hand" that I referenced was the duty to address the argument made, rather than point fingers.

The actual "argument" is in the context of the accusation. The accusation itself is not the argument, but rather an attempt at deflection.

Here's an example of what I mean, a typical discussion one might find:

A: I think we should adopt socialist policies here in the United States.
B: No, socialism is bad, look at what happened in the Soviet Union, look at all the crimes they did.

Already, we see an attempt at deflection, taking the focus away from the United States, which was the original argument, and then taking us all the way to the other side of the world. We also have guilt by association, suggesting that because one socialist state committed crimes, socialism itself is somehow a criminal ideology.

Also, note that the "argument" in question is about whether socialism should be adopted in the U.S., not a list of accusations against the Soviet government. It's a blatant attempt to shift the actual focus of the discussion.

But that aside, the actual "argument" we're talking about implies a postulate that "due to the fact that the Soviet Union adopted socialism (and for no other apparent reason), they are guilty of X, Y, and Z." The actual crimes and accusations are NOT the "argument." The accusations are merely recitations of evidence used to support the implied argument that "socialism is bad" (coupled with the further implication that "capitalism is good").

This is, essentially, what it amounts to.

The typical argument involving "whataboutism" generally implies a comparative argument to begin with. When an argument is already established that way from the get-go, I see no reason why comparisons and contrasts should be considered out of bounds.

 

[Willamena]

The actual "argument" is in the context of the accusation. The accusation itself is not the argument, but rather an attempt at deflection.

Here's an example of what I mean, a typical discussion one might find:

A: I think we should adopt socialist policies here in the United States.
B: No, socialism is bad, look at what happened in the Soviet Union, look at all the crimes they did.

Already, we see an attempt at deflection, taking the focus away from the United States, which was the original argument, and then taking us all the way to the other side of the world. We also have guilt by association, suggesting that because one socialist state committed crimes, socialism itself is somehow a criminal ideology.

Also, note that the "argument" in question is about whether socialism should be adopted in the U.S., not a list of accusations against the Soviet government. It's a blatant attempt to shift the actual focus of the discussion.

But that aside, the actual "argument" we're talking about implies a postulate that "due to the fact that the Soviet Union adopted socialism (and for no other apparent reason), they are guilty of X, Y, and Z." The actual crimes and accusations are NOT the "argument." The accusations are merely recitations of evidence used to support the implied argument that "socialism is bad" (coupled with the further implication that "capitalism is good").

This is, essentially, what it amounts to.

The typical argument involving "whataboutism" generally implies a comparative argument to begin with. When an argument is already established that way from the get-go, I see no reason why comparisons and contrasts should be considered out of bounds.

I don't see this as an example of Whataboutism. The counter-argument is not deflection, but sound.

Not all pointing of fingers is Whataboutism.

A better (hypothetical) example can be had at most Whitehouse Press briefings this year.
A: Why does the President not denounce White Nationalist hatred?
B: Why didn't Clinton? Why didn't Obama?

The implication is that the questioner is hypocritical for even suggesting that the President should take this action.

That other Presidents have done nothing is not the issue at hand, and in avoiding answering the question, the questioner is, in turn, put in the spot. It's a tactic that, when habitual, constitutes fallacious thinking.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't see this as an example of Whataboutism. The counter-argument is not deflection, but sound.

That was my point all along.

Not all pointing of fingers is Whataboutism.

A better (hypothetical) example can be had at most Whitehouse Press briefings this year.
A: Why does the President not denounce White Nationalist hatred?
B: Why didn't Clinton? Why didn't Obama?

The implication is that the questioner is hypocritical for even suggesting that the President should take this action.

That other Presidents have done nothing is not the issue at hand, and in avoiding answering the question, the questioner is, in turn, put in the spot. It's a tactic that, when habitual, constitutes fallacious thinking.

The thing is, there is an answer to the question posed by B in your example. But I'll get to that in a moment.

First, the question posed by A is intentionally provocative. It implies two things:

1. It is the President's obligation to actively and overtly denounce white nationalist hatred.
2. The fact that Trump did not denounce white nationalist hatred (if, in fact, he did not denounce it, which hasn't been established in any case) calls into question whether Trump himself may sympathize with white nationalist views (or may even be a closet white nationalist himself).

As far as I know, Trump has denied being a racist and has publicly denounced racism, so such a question would be raised under false pretenses anyway. (Of course, many people still believe that he's lying and that they he only made disingenuous, token denunciations, but that's another issue.)

As to why Clinton or Obama never publicly denounced white nationalist hatred, it's probably because they were never asked to do so (although I'm sure someone could probably find a quote somewhere where they do condemn it, but I'm not sure). I think most people likely assumed that they were already against white nationalist hatred, so no one thought to ask. It's like asking the president if he's against murder or tyranny; of course they're going to be against it and even denounce it. It should go without saying, so it doesn't even need to come up at all. After all, they took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so within that framework, they have a sworn duty to oppose white nationalism or any other ideology which threatens the Constitution.

And it's not uncommon for reporters or discussants to ask loaded questions, so in such instances, I see no problem with putting the questioner on the spot and asking for clarification. This is especially true if a question is rhetorical or intended to provoke.

One thing to keep in mind is that, just because someone asks a question, it doesn't automatically entitle them to an answer. Moreover, the answer they get may not be confined in the nice neat little box they would prefer it to be, but as long as they get an answer, then they can't say that someone didn't answer the question. It was just an answer they didn't like, but sometimes that happens.

 

[Willamena]

Stev, you are overthinking it.

 

[Stevicus]

Stev, you are overthinking it.

Well, I think it's sometimes important to look at things beyond a surface level.