Whataboutism makes no sense: it's illogical

[Revoltingest]

You need to understand my cultural background.
As I understand yours: that is, in your culture, debates are less animated.

I think we have too much animation.
Debates here are all....

 

[Soandso]

Could you repeat the question?

There was no question, I was just letting you know that I didn't agree with your understanding of what a whataboutism is. It's important for folks to come to an agreement on what something is before there can be discussion on an issue, otherwise they'll just be talking past each other. I've come up with an example of what I understand to be a whataboutism in this post

This would not be whataboutism as the situation described is merely a comparison between two participants of the same event. Let's look at the dictionary definition:

the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

A more accurate example would be for the man who was fined for parking in the handicapped parking spot when he wasn't handicapped to snap back at the cop with something like "Why are you harassing me for a minor parking infraction when there are real crimes going on in the city?"

What are your thoughts on my understanding vs. the example you provided in your initial OP?

 

[Stevicus]

Here's an example of whataboutism: But what about all the wars started by the USA?

Here's NOT an example of whataboutism: Indeed, Russia is not justified in invading Ukraine. But what about all the wars started by the USA? I see you using different standards to judge Russia and the USA.

If you address the topic at hand, and then point out someone else is using a double standard, you are not engaging in whataboutism.

When it comes to wars and attempting to address the causes or blame, it can lead to a number of cause-and-effect relationships which make it difficult to separate them. It can also be problematic when someone attempts to play favorites and take sides of one against another, as such an opinion can not be considered truly objective or neutral.

If, for example, someone said that Russia invaded Ukraine because they were worried about Ukraine joining NATO as a prelude to U.S. aggression, then citing wars started by the USA would very much become a valid part of the discussion. The condemnation of Russia is rooted in the notion that "the USA is never aggressive," which would imply that Russia is unjustified in their actions.

 

[Kfox]

I mean, in a debate, so many people plead the fifth, that is, refuse to answer an interlocutor's question because they bring up whataboutism.
Is whataboutism really an argument?

I mean...it sounds like a desperate attempt to avoid answering. To avoid addressing the question.

I give you an example: hypothetical question.
There are two parking lots reserved for disabled people. A man and a woman decide to park there, and they park at the same time.
After few hours the police officer gives the man a ticket for violating the law.
But, seeing how sexy the woman is (and since she winks at him) the police officer lets the woman go, without fining her.

The man protests, saying: what? you fined me and didn't fine that woman who parked in the same parking lot as me! What about her?

According to this very ridiculous principle, the police officer would have the right to say: that's whataboutism! Shut up.

So I really think that whataboutism is the most illogical argument ever.
I guess it was invented by an aristocrat.

What do you guys think?

I think whataboutism is perfectly logical because they point out unfairness.

 

[Soandso]

I think whataboutism is perfectly logical because they point out unfairness.

As whataboutisms are considered a veriant of the tu quoque fallacy, how can something be perfectly logical when it's a logical fallacy?

Tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in which one discredits a position by asserting that the proponent has acted contradictory to their stated position. Despite its surprising effectiveness as a persuasion tool, it is classically considered a logical fallacy.

Tu quoque: You Too?!?

You’ve probably had at least a handful of adults tell you not to do drugs or to never drink underage. Imagine that you found out your parents did all of these things when they were your age.

academy4sc.org

 

[McBell]

I mean whataboutism legitimizes doublestandardism.
That is, people are allowed to create injustice, by applying two standards to identical situations.

Where do you draw the double standard line?
For example, are exceptions to the rule double standards?

 

[Estro Felino]

Where do you draw the double standard line?
For example, are exceptions to the rule double standards?

Does the principle "the law is equal for all" admit exceptions?

 

[McBell]

Does the principle "the law is equal for all" admit exceptions?

Yes it does.
One prime example is that police are allowed to speed to catch a speeder.

Now it is your turn to answer my question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which basically is a pretext to legitimize double standards.
That is, the US is God, so it can start any war.

Russia is nothing, so it cannot start the Ukrainian war.
Right?

No, now your error is using a strawman argument.

 

[Koldo]

When it comes to wars and attempting to address the causes or blame, it can lead to a number of cause-and-effect relationships which make it difficult to separate them. It can also be problematic when someone attempts to play favorites and take sides of one against another, as such an opinion can not be considered truly objective or neutral.

If, for example, someone said that Russia invaded Ukraine because they were worried about Ukraine joining NATO as a prelude to U.S. aggression, then citing wars started by the USA would very much become a valid part of the discussion. The condemnation of Russia is rooted in the notion that "the USA is never aggressive," which would imply that Russia is unjustified in their actions.

I am going to disagree that condemning Russia is rooted on the notion that the USA is never aggressive.

 

[Stevicus]

I mean, in a debate, so many people plead the fifth, that is, refuse to answer an interlocutor's question because they bring up whataboutism.
Is whataboutism really an argument?

I mean...it sounds like a desperate attempt to avoid answering. To avoid addressing the question.

I give you an example: hypothetical question.
There are two parking lots reserved for disabled people. A man and a woman decide to park there, and they park at the same time.
After few hours the police officer gives the man a ticket for violating the law.
But, seeing how sexy the woman is (and since she winks at him) the police officer lets the woman go, without fining her.

The man protests, saying: what? you fined me and didn't fine that woman who parked in the same parking lot as me! What about her?

According to this very ridiculous principle, the police officer would have the right to say: that's whataboutism! Shut up.

So I really think that whataboutism is the most illogical argument ever.
I guess it was invented by an aristocrat.

What do you guys think?

Something that I've seen common in a lot of political discussions where whataboutism is raised is not so much due to any kind of factual dispute. Instead, the argument seems to revolve around competing opinions about how people are supposed to feel about an event, action, speech, argument, or whatever it might be. It usually comes up in a context where there is a great deal of sanctimony and emotionalism, not really facts or logic.

Reading up on the origins of the term: Whataboutism - Wikipedia

According to lexicographer Ben Zimmer,[13] the term originated in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Zimmer cites a 1974 letter by history teacher Sean O'Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about "the Whatabouts", people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy:

I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the "enemy", and therefore the justice of the Provisionals' cause: "What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?". Every call to stop is answered in the same way: "What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?". Neither is the Church immune: "The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?"
— Sean O'Conaill, "Letter to Editor", The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974

Three days later, an opinion column by John Healy in the same paper entitled "Enter the cultural British Army" picked up the theme by using the term whataboutery: "As a correspondent noted in a recent letter to this paper, we are very big on Whatabout Morality, matching one historic injustice with another justified injustice. We have a bellyfull [sic] of Whataboutery in these killing days and the one clear fact to emerge is that people, Orange and Green, are dying as a result of it."[14] Zimmer says the term gained wide currency in commentary about the conflict between unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland.[13] Zimmer also notes that the variant whataboutism was used in the same context in a 1993 book by Tony Parker.[13]

In 1978, Australian journalist Michael Bernard wrote a column in The Age applying the term whataboutism to the Soviet Union's tactics of deflecting any criticism of its human rights abuses. Merriam-Webster details that "the association of whataboutism with the Soviet Union began during the Cold War. As the regimes of [Joseph] Stalin and his successors were criticized by the West for human rights atrocities, the Soviet propaganda machine would be ready with a comeback alleging atrocities of equal reprehensibility for which the West was guilty."[15]

It usually comes up in the context of informal public discourse, not a formal court proceeding. Much of the time, it comes up in discussions of things that would cause a great deal of moral outrage and condemnation, such as a terrorist act, government/military atrocity, police brutality, or some other comparable action.

The key thing to consider is that it deals not with a dry recitation of facts or a list of charges of wrongdoing, but instead, it calls attention to "condemnation" over "reprehensible acts" (in other words, opinions).

Basically, it starts with someone wanting to condemn or incite moral outrage against a country or a group of people by citing some horrific act of terrorism to rile people up and make them angry. That's the goal of the initial statement - purely emotional in nature. Then someone might come back and say "What about country X and what they do to provoke these actions?" That's when the initial speaker will then condemn the "whataboutist" for stealing their thunder and trying to undermine a blatant attempt at emotional incitement.

The bottom line is that both sides are reciting facts, yet the actual disagreement they're having is not about that, but how they're supposed to feel about it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes it does.
One prime example is that police are allowed to speed to catch a speeder.

Now it is your turn to answer my question.

But the police is not entitled to murder a criminal.
So the law is qual for all...even for them.

 

[Estro Felino]

I am going to disagree that condemning Russia is rooted on the notion that the USA is never aggressive.

You can say that.
Brazil has never bothered anyone.
But my point is that it's weird that an American citizen considers Russia the warlord of the world, disregarding the Vietnam war, the Iraqi war, the Libyan war and the Syrian war.
That's my point.

Of course commoners undergo the governments' decisions.
But my point was: either you condemn both USA and Russia, or you condemn neither of them.

 

[Stevicus]

I am going to disagree that condemning Russia is rooted on the notion that the USA is never aggressive.

The US geopolitical position for over the past 100 years has been to claim that other countries are aggressive, while claiming the US is always on the side of the defenders. That's been the cornerstone of US foreign and military policies for a very long time now.

 

[McBell]

But the police is not entitled to murder a criminal.
So the law is qual for all...even for them.

the fact is that speeding is against the law UNLESS you are LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) chasing a suspect
OR
an ambulance driver with a patient in serious condition
OR
a fire truck heading to a fire

Three different exception just off the top of my head and just for speeding.

So there you have it, plain as day, exceptions to the rule.

Is it your opinion that these exceptions (double standards) are acceptable?

 

[Nakosis]

I mean, in a debate, so many people plead the fifth, that is, refuse to answer an interlocutor's question because they bring up whataboutism.
Is whataboutism really an argument?

I mean...it sounds like a desperate attempt to avoid answering. To avoid addressing the question.

I give you an example: hypothetical question.
There are two parking lots reserved for disabled people. A man and a woman decide to park there, and they park at the same time.
After few hours the police officer gives the man a ticket for violating the law.
But, seeing how sexy the woman is (and since she winks at him) the police officer lets the woman go, without fining her.

The man protests, saying: what? you fined me and didn't fine that woman who parked in the same parking lot as me! What about her?

According to this very ridiculous principle, the police officer would have the right to say: that's whataboutism! Shut up.

So I really think that whataboutism is the most illogical argument ever.
I guess it was invented by an aristocrat.

What do you guys think?

I don't really like the use of whataboutism in the discussion either but what it is actually doing is pointing out the bad behavior of the officer, not giving them the right to act out this behavior.

For example if someone points out your fan favorite political candidate made a racist comment and instead of addressing the accusation you bring up a completely different candidate's racist remark to justify what your candidate said, that is whataboutism.

Doesn't really absolve your candidate of having made a racist remark. Kind of like if an attorney in their defense argument of a serial killer brings up the case of another serial killer thinking that this is sufficient grounds to absolve their client of their crime.

To avoid this, try not bringing up someone else's crimes to defend your own.

 

[Estro Felino]

the fact is that speeding is against the law UNLESS you are LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) chasing a suspect
OR
an ambulance driver with a patient in serious condition
OR
a fire truck heading to a fire

so are the civilian drivers who have a severely injured person aboard.

Three different exception just off the top of my head and just for speeding.

So there you have it, plain as day, exceptions to the rule.

Is it your opinion that these exceptions (double standards) are acceptable?

I presented in the OP an example of double standards.
Is that double standards, in your opinion?

 

[Estro Felino]

Doesn't really absolve your candidate of having made a racist remark. Kind of like if an attorney in their defense argument of a serial killer brings up the case of another serial killer thinking that this is sufficient grounds to absolve their client of their crime.

In my country it is a defense argument an attorney can use.

A prosecutor, a district attorney cannot apply two different standards for the same identical crime.
I know attorneys who would crush the DA like a cockroach. They would destroy him in court, and win the case just like that.

To avoid this, try not bringing up someone else's crimes to defend your own.

It's doable in my country.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't really like the use of whataboutism in the discussion either but what it is actually doing is pointing out the bad behavior of the officer, not giving them the right to act out this behavior.

For example if someone points out your fan favorite political candidate made a racist comment and instead of addressing the accusation you bring up a completely different candidate's racist remark to justify what your candidate said, that is whataboutism.

Doesn't really absolve your candidate of having made a racist remark. Kind of like if an attorney in their defense argument of a serial killer brings up the case of another serial killer think that this is sufficient grounds to absolve their client of their crime.

To avoid this, try not bringing up someone else's crimes to defend your own.

To expound further on the example, consider the following hypothetical dialog:

Supporter of Candidate A: Candidate B is horrible! He just made a racist remark.
Supporter of Candidate B: But Candidate A also made a horrible racist remark!
Supporter of Candidate A: Doesn't matter! Whataboutism!

In this example, the supporter of B is implying that the supporter of A isn't really quite so outraged or horrified by racist remarks in general, since they ignore such remarks from their own candidate. So, if they don't really care about racist remarks, why would they pretend to care when it comes to one person, while ignoring it for anyone else?

Is that an unreasonable question?

 

[Koldo]

The US geopolitical position for over the past 100 years has been to claim that other countries are aggressive, while claiming the US is always on the side of the defenders. That's been the cornerstone of US foreign and military policies for a very long time now.

I know. What I am saying is that criticism of Russia's actions doesn't depend on the notion that the USA is never aggressive. I, for example, criticize both the USA and Russia.