Whataboutism makes no sense: it's illogical

[Heyo]

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?

As @Soandso pointed out, whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy. What makes it a fallacy is the fact that the user of the fallacy wants to get out of a situation, mostly by using the whataboutism as a red herring (another fallacy).
Using your example, the man points at the woman, asking "what about her" to get out of the fine. That should not help him, as he is guilty of parking in a handicapped spot.
It wouldn't be a fallacy if he paid the fine and then accused the officer of hypocrisy.
That's the correct way of getting out of the fallacy: first address the question, when that is settled, point out any double standards and hypocrisies.

 

[Kfox]

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

I believe it was Colin Powell who said he not only learned from his own mistakes, but also from the mistakes of others. If my parents warned me against doing something dangerous, then I found out later they did that dangerous thing when they were young and was harmed by it, I would put it under the category of learning from the mistakes of others.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Yes, although if one is making a critical analysis of Russia's actions, one has to look at the overall geopolitical situation and gauge the causes and effects of what might trigger such actions. It requires a certain level of objectivity and knowledge of history and current events.

On the other hand, if someone is merely trying to incite moral outrage and public anger towards "the other," then that's a different matter entirely and should be dealt with on that basis.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

This is simply an attempt to attack the credibility of the other person by basically calling them a hypocrite.
It doesn't really benefit the point being argued and usually results in a completely different argument of the poster now trying to defend their integrity. Basically poisoning the well so one never has to address the point in question.

I don't like the claim being made when the point of it is to simply poison the well. It doesn't serve the discussion any and sends it off onto a useless tangent.

 

[Kfox]

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

Police are allowed to shoot criminals with guns. Now whether that shooting is determined to be murder or not is to be later determined.

 

[Estro Felino]

Police are allowed to shoot criminals with guns. Now whether that shooting is determined to be murder or not is to be later determined.

Only as self-defense.
But again: since in the US there is the second amendment, even civilians can shoot criminals with guns, so there is zero difference.

 

[Stevicus]

This is simply an attempt to attack the credibility of the other person by basically calling them a hypocrite.
It doesn't really benefit the point being argued and usually results in a completely different argument of the poster now trying to defend their integrity. Basically poisoning the well so one never has to address the point in question.

I don't like the claim being made when the point of it is to simply poison the well. It doesn't serve the discussion any and sends it off onto a useless tangent.

I agree that it does poison the well. And as others have mentioned, it is a logical fallacy. In the political world, it's often called "mud slinging," which is rarely logical anyway. Sadly, such tactics have had proven success in US politics. More is the pity.

If you really scratch the surface in a lot of political discussions, a common theme seems to revolve around each side accusing the other of concealing their real reasons for whatever stance they're taking.

 

[Soandso]

I believe it was Colin Powell who said he not only learned from his own mistakes, but also from the mistakes of others. If my parents warned me against doing something dangerous, then I found out later they did that dangerous thing when they were young and was harmed by it, I would put it under the category of learning from the mistakes of others.

What you describe is not a tu quoque fallacy, but as you say, is an example of learning from the mistakes of others

The point of using the tu quoque fallacy when someone tells you not to do drugs when they themselves do drugs is to say "How can you tell me not to do drugs when you do drugs too?" It's a logical fallacy because, even though you are pointing out the hypocrisy of it, it doesn't make the initial observation wrong and instead shifts the focus on something else entirely

This is what the article says about whataboutisms:

A variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy is popularly credited to have developed during the Cold War. Named whataboutism, it is defined as any attempt to discredit a person’s position by accusing the speaker of being hypocritical without directly disproving the argument in question. Whataboutism, also called whataboutery, derives its name from the phrase “what about,” which often is used to twist criticism back on the critic.

Whataboutisms kill conversation and turn a discussion on a particular topic into a finger pointing competition. All conversation on the issue stops and nothing useful happens after that

 

[Estro Felino]

This is simply an attempt to attack the credibility of the other person by basically calling them a hypocrite.
It doesn't really benefit the point being argued and usually results in a completely different argument of the poster now trying to defend their integrity. Basically poisoning the well so one never has to address the point in question.

I don't like the claim being made when the point of it is to simply poison the well. It doesn't serve the discussion any and sends it off onto a useless tangent.

I give you an example: Semiramis was a lustful queen, according to some historians.
He made lust and incest legal, so she could commit these acts.
If she had kept them illegal, her people would have accused her of doublestandardism.

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

But that wasn't an example of whataboutism, since both incidents were not only related, but were the same incident.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

There is de jure (law as written) & de facto (law
as practiced). Police may murder criminals &
even innocents without being prosecuted.
This can be due to prosecutorial corruption
or qualified immunity. Federal police even
have absolute immunity.
So there is a very real double standard for
civilians & government minions.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not only.
I have been accused of whataboutism whenever I mentioned the wars started by the US in a thread speaking of Ukraine.
Is that whataboutism as well?

Only if 1.) The U.S. carried out an unprovoked invasion of another country with the intention of annexing it and committed war crimes while doing so, and if 2.) people were condemning one but not the other.

 

[JIMMY12345]

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?

Fine so longer as a Policewomen gives the lady a ticket.So long as the guys go away ticket free.
ps Are their more lady drivers then men drivers? I do know all the fast cars are driven increasingly by women.

 

[Estro Felino]

Only if 1.) The U.S. carried out an unprovoked invasion of another country with the intention of annexing it and committed war crimes while doing so,

In Iraq...that's what's happened. On the basis of lies. Lies, lies, lies.

'He lied': Iraqis still blame Powell for role in Iraq war

For many Iraqis, the name Colin Powell conjures up one image: the man who as U.S. secretary of State went before the U.N.

apnews.com

if 2.) people were condemning one but not the other.

Some do not condemn the US. Just Russia.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some do not condemn the US. Just Russia.

Some do not condemn Russia. Just US.

 

[Estro Felino]

Fine so longer as a Policewomen gives the lady a ticket.So long as the guys go away ticket free.

Parking on a parking lot reserved for disabled people is serious...but not as serious as provoking a car accident.

That said: the cop could have fined both people, and none of this would have ever happened.

ps Are their more lady drivers then men drivers? I do know all the fast cars are driven increasingly by women.

Statistics say that in my country the 76% of car accidents are caused by male drivers. 24% by women.

Donne al volante pericolo costante?

Il confronto tra uomini e donne al volante esiste da sempre, ma uno studio rivela che le donne risultano essere più sicure al volante, a discapito degli uomini.

www.bramocar.it

 

[Estro Felino]

Some do not condemn Russia. Just US.

I condemn Russia, dearest.
But it's like the speck of dust compared to the huge, enormous log in the eye of the United States.

 

[Revoltingest]

I condemn Russia, dearest.
But it's like the speck of dust compared to the huge, enormous log in the eye of the United States.

It appears so because you don't notice people
in USA criticizing USA. A great many of us
criticize both.
Whataboutism arises when some wag wants
to deflect from criticism of Russia by switching
to criticism of Obama, USA, etc.
It appears thus...
"Don't criticize Russia. USA is bad, & therefore
criticism of Russia is wrong, & shouldn't be done."

 

[Estro Felino]

There is de juro (law as written)

De jure. Ablative singular, third declension.

& de facto (law
as practiced).

Police may murder criminals &
even innocents without being prosecuted.

In your country. Not in mine.
In Naples a police officer was in a car with his partner. A 15 year old boy threatened him with a pistol, to rob him. He wanted to steal his watch and his money.
The police officer had his professional gun with him and shot him at his back- killing him.
It turns out he is under trial.
I hope he is acquitted.
But it's just an example to make you see that officers here cannot kill anybody, just like that.

This can be due to prosecutorial corruption
or qualified immunity. Federal police even
have absolute immunity.

Not in my country.

So there is a very real double standard for
civilians & government minions.

Absolutely. And you guys need to protest and to change the law.

 

[Estro Felino]

It appears so because you don't notice people
in USA criticizing USA. A great many of us
criticize both.
Whataboutism arises when some wag wants
to deflect from criticism of Russia by switching
to criticism of Obama, USA, etc.
It appears thus...
"Don't criticize Russia. USA is bad, & therefore
criticism of Russia is wrong, & shouldn't be done."

First of all, it's the MIC and the élites that make wars. Not the American commoners.
So, the USA is not bad. The commoners undergo bad things: committed by US governments, who obey the MIC.

Is Russia any different? Not quite. They do have élites who love war...but Russia is the lesser of two evils.
Considering how Obama and Hillary destroyed Libya.