First, the definition:
Whataboutism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Definition of whataboutism
: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse
The exchange is indicative of a rhetorical strategy known as whataboutism, which occurs when officials implicated in wrongdoing whip out a counter-example of a similar abuse from the accusing country, with the goal of undermining the legitimacy of the criticism itself.— Olga Khazan
By whataboutism I mean the way any discussion can be short-circuited by saying "but what about x???" where x is usually something that's not really equivalent but is close enough to turn the conversation into mush.— Touré
also : the response itself
They accomplish it by muddying the waters and distracting from international criticisms with whataboutisms such as telling the world that there's nothing exceptional about America.— Alex Zeldin
— called also (chiefly British) whataboutery
Here is Wikipedia's link: Whataboutism - Wikipedia
Here is an article from the Merriam-Webster site: What is 'whataboutism'? | Merriam-Webster
"Whataboutism" was added to Webster's in October, 2021, although it appears it's been in use in Britain for several decades now, ostensibly originating in the 1970s.
I don't dispute the basic notion that Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, as noted here - a variant of the tu quoque fallacy, which means "you too." It's obvious that, in the context of an accusation of a defendant in a court case, it's not a defense to claim that "other people do it too."
If the goal of an accusation is to simply call attention to someone's wrongdoing, then that's what courtrooms are for. Outside of that structured environment, then the rules are a bit less rigid.
Outside of that formal environment, the reasons and motives for calling attention to someone's wrongdoing are more a matter of politics and trying to influence public opinion against the target of someone's accusation.
The quotes in the definition above and the general consensus I've seen from those who complain about "whataboutism" essentially express frustration that it "muddies the waters," "short-circuits" a discussion, and/or undermines the legitimacy of the original criticism.
On the other hand, if someone's sole intent is to blacken the reputation of an individual, a government, or a political ideology, then that might also be seen as a rhetorical strategy in and of itself. Sometimes, it can be interpreted as disingenuous character assassination, depending on the context and the nature of the accusations.
If someone is attacking someone else to make themselves look good, then, quite frankly, they've already opened the door to a "whataboutist" line of argumentation, and therefore, they have no leg to stand on in criticizing it.
Worse still, the person complaining about whataboutism could be making a tacit admission that they have no consistent set of moral principles and are disingenuously using a moral judgment as a propaganda ploy to influence others. It's mainly designed to appeal to people's emotions anyway.
It may be useful from the standpoint of riling up public opinion and perhaps coming up with a pretext for war or some other hostile action against a country.
That's why politicians and governments do it, but in reading the criticisms of whataboutism as a "logical fallacy," I find myself wondering why anyone believes that an accusation or moral judgment is worthy of any kind of "logical" response to begin with. It's a rhetorical ploy, and whataboutism is merely a reflective demonstration of the process in action.
This is not so much a defense of whataboutism as much as it's an attack on the kinds of statements which usually invite whataboutism as a response.
To address some of the criticisms of whataboutism, the byline of the Merriam-Webster article (linked above) asks: "If everyone is guilty of something, is no one guilty of anything?"
I would answer that by asking another question: Why is so godawful bloody important to find someone "guilty" of something in the first place? Unless you're in an actual court of law bringing formal charges against someone, what is the point? If it's in the context of public policy or foreign policy, can't we just approach the matter from the standpoint of our practical and logical national interests? Are moral judgments even necessary in the context of geopolitics, or is it just so much bunkum for the masses and not to be taken seriously?
Whataboutism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Definition of whataboutism
: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse
The exchange is indicative of a rhetorical strategy known as whataboutism, which occurs when officials implicated in wrongdoing whip out a counter-example of a similar abuse from the accusing country, with the goal of undermining the legitimacy of the criticism itself.— Olga Khazan
By whataboutism I mean the way any discussion can be short-circuited by saying "but what about x???" where x is usually something that's not really equivalent but is close enough to turn the conversation into mush.— Touré
also : the response itself
They accomplish it by muddying the waters and distracting from international criticisms with whataboutisms such as telling the world that there's nothing exceptional about America.— Alex Zeldin
— called also (chiefly British) whataboutery
Here is Wikipedia's link: Whataboutism - Wikipedia
Here is an article from the Merriam-Webster site: What is 'whataboutism'? | Merriam-Webster
"Whataboutism" was added to Webster's in October, 2021, although it appears it's been in use in Britain for several decades now, ostensibly originating in the 1970s.
I don't dispute the basic notion that Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, as noted here - a variant of the tu quoque fallacy, which means "you too." It's obvious that, in the context of an accusation of a defendant in a court case, it's not a defense to claim that "other people do it too."
If the goal of an accusation is to simply call attention to someone's wrongdoing, then that's what courtrooms are for. Outside of that structured environment, then the rules are a bit less rigid.
Outside of that formal environment, the reasons and motives for calling attention to someone's wrongdoing are more a matter of politics and trying to influence public opinion against the target of someone's accusation.
The quotes in the definition above and the general consensus I've seen from those who complain about "whataboutism" essentially express frustration that it "muddies the waters," "short-circuits" a discussion, and/or undermines the legitimacy of the original criticism.
On the other hand, if someone's sole intent is to blacken the reputation of an individual, a government, or a political ideology, then that might also be seen as a rhetorical strategy in and of itself. Sometimes, it can be interpreted as disingenuous character assassination, depending on the context and the nature of the accusations.
If someone is attacking someone else to make themselves look good, then, quite frankly, they've already opened the door to a "whataboutist" line of argumentation, and therefore, they have no leg to stand on in criticizing it.
Worse still, the person complaining about whataboutism could be making a tacit admission that they have no consistent set of moral principles and are disingenuously using a moral judgment as a propaganda ploy to influence others. It's mainly designed to appeal to people's emotions anyway.
It may be useful from the standpoint of riling up public opinion and perhaps coming up with a pretext for war or some other hostile action against a country.
That's why politicians and governments do it, but in reading the criticisms of whataboutism as a "logical fallacy," I find myself wondering why anyone believes that an accusation or moral judgment is worthy of any kind of "logical" response to begin with. It's a rhetorical ploy, and whataboutism is merely a reflective demonstration of the process in action.
This is not so much a defense of whataboutism as much as it's an attack on the kinds of statements which usually invite whataboutism as a response.
To address some of the criticisms of whataboutism, the byline of the Merriam-Webster article (linked above) asks: "If everyone is guilty of something, is no one guilty of anything?"
I would answer that by asking another question: Why is so godawful bloody important to find someone "guilty" of something in the first place? Unless you're in an actual court of law bringing formal charges against someone, what is the point? If it's in the context of public policy or foreign policy, can't we just approach the matter from the standpoint of our practical and logical national interests? Are moral judgments even necessary in the context of geopolitics, or is it just so much bunkum for the masses and not to be taken seriously?
