Whataboutism: Some general thoughts

[We Never Know]

Talk about deflection, or is it evasion? Don't complain, argue the issue. Am I wrong in what I stated? There's tons of press about Hilary's emails. FBI involvement. DOJ involvement. The Times article explains why the FBI didn't charge her. trump taking boxes of classified material to Mara Lago? Hardly a mention in the press.

This isn't deflection. This is an opportunity to discuss if there is bias in media, society, and politics against Hilary and more leeway for trump, despite his pattern of excessive corruption.

Were we talking about Trump or Hillary? There is your deflection.

 

[Stevicus]

I think there are some cases where this is a valid response. For example we saw many trump supporters insisting Clinton wasn't fit to be president because of the email scandal. Yes, it was her server. Yes, it was legal for her to remove her personal emails at the time she did that, it isn't legal now. It was an error of judgment that she used a private server, but not corruption.

Since the argument is about corruption as a core issue of who is fit to be president I think it fair and appropriate to bring up who trump is as a counter argument, and this would be to expose the person of having no actual standard for coruption to decide a president's fitness, but also expose how trump is truly not fit for the office.

That said I think this approach is only appropriate IF there is a multi-option comparison being made in an argument. This would include an implied "other parties" as introduced when the issue is among ethical presidential candidates.

If it is a general discussion of how Republicans are more divisive and use more extreme rhetoric, whataboutism wouldn't fly.

The interesting thing about political campaign rhetoric is that both sides will focus on how horrible the other side is, that the voting public is often faced with the cynical choice of picking the lesser of two evils. I've observed a common trend where charges of "whataboutism" and "false equivalency" often come up to the point where the discussion is no longer about the actual issues in question but more a spitting contest of "who is worse."

Normally, I would just attribute it to the standard mud-slinging that happens at every election, but the "basket of deplorables" tactic seemed almost an escalation. It wasn't simply a matter of disagreeing with someone's philosophy or political platform, but it required a passionately absolutist position that someone is completely irredeemable and (for all practical purposes) the absolute scum of the earth.

It's not simply a matter of pointing out someone's wrongdoing in a vacuum, but it's a way of persuading the masses to utterly malign, derogate, and even hate another person - or other people, other political parties - or even nations and races when brought to the extreme.

 

[Stevicus]

So is it a matter of its them, not me?

In a nutshell, yes.

 

[Suave]

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?

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?

Two wrongs do not make a right, but three lefts do.

 

[Stevicus]

Isn't calling the milk spilled a moral judgement?
And doesn't finding solutions start out with identifying the problem?

In my opinion.

Yes, finding solutions involves looking at the problem analytically and logically. Adding a moral judgment might make some people feel better, but does it really identify the problem or propose any solution?

Moral judgments invariably involve a condemnation of "bad behavior" to which the only obvious solution is "people should just behave better." The actual question of why people might behave badly seems irrelevant within the narrow construct of moral judgment. Some people even take umbrage that anyone would dare to ask such an impertinent question. The only thing that seems to matter is moral judgment, condemnation, and punishment - rather than take a careful, analytical, and objective look at what really happened and why.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes, finding solutions involves looking at the problem analytically and logically. Adding a moral judgment might make some people feel better, but does it really identify the problem or propose any solution?

Moral judgments invariably involve a condemnation of "bad behavior" to which the only obvious solution is "people should just behave better." The actual question of why people might behave badly seems irrelevant within the narrow construct of moral judgment. Some people even take umbrage that anyone would dare to ask such an impertinent question. The only thing that seems to matter is moral judgment, condemnation, and punishment - rather than take a careful, analytical, and objective look at what really happened and why.

When I make a moral judgement I usually at least try to identify why people undertook their course of action and how the factors leading to that action could be mitigated.

In other words I dont think moral judgements necessarily need be punishment focused.

In my opinion.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think whataboutism is an American and generally Anglo-Saxon way to gag the interlocutor, to shut their mouth, by preventing them from making a point.

In my language it is not that used as a term .

Doublestandardism is much more used.
It is a term we use when the interlocutor wants to normalize double standards.
That is: the an attitude many people have to say that a person is entitled to do something, whereas others are not.
doppiopesismo - Wikizionario

 

[Estro Felino]

Whataboutism does not work in politics.
Because there is the principle Lex eadem omnibus or Lex aequa omnibus so a politician cannot apply different moral or ethical standards towards the political opponent. Different than their own.

 

[Stevicus]

When I make a moral judgement I usually at least try to identify why people undertook their course of action and how the factors leading to that action could be mitigated.

In other words I dont think moral judgements necessarily need be punishment focused.

In my opinion.

Fair enough, although I might suggest that the moral judgment, in and of itself, wouldn't necessarily entail the whys and wherefores of any given act.

Like, say you had some poor hungry guy who steals a loaf of bread so he can eat. Then you have another guy who's a billionaire who steals another billion just because he can.

From the point of view of moral judgments, they're both thieves.

The billionaire can point his finger at the poor guy and say "He's a thief!" and he would be absolutely correct. However, to point out the billionaire's sins would be cavalierly dismissed as "whataboutism," and that's what I would take issue with.

 

[Estro Felino]

Fair enough, although I might suggest that the moral judgment, in and of itself, wouldn't necessarily entail the whys and wherefores of any given act.

Like, say you had some poor hungry guy who steals a loaf of bread so he can eat. Then you have another guy who's a billionaire who steals another billion just because he can.

From the point of view of moral judgments, they're both thieves.

The billionaire can point his finger at the poor guy and say "He's a thief!" and he would be absolutely correct. However, to point out the billionaire's sins would be cavalierly dismissed as "whataboutism," and that's what I would take issue with.

That's an interesting example.
That is why in penal law there is a very complex system of attenuating/aggravating circumstances, because obviously the vertical equity principle says people have different personal and social conditions.

That said, if a person sets a precise standard for a situation, they cannot apply different standards for two different people.
Example: politicians' sex life. If you care about politicians' private sex, life, you should focus on politicians of all parties, even those you disagree with. And accusing others of whataboutism is laughable.

When Clinton was crucified for something he did in his privacy, I was shocked how people could care about that.

The problem is setting the bar of standards very high. That would avoid both whataboutism or doublestandardism.

 

[Estro Felino]

From a juridical and judicial point of view, whataboutism is absolutely rejected.

Because a judge that condemned a person to 10 years of jail for manslaughter, cannot condemn another person to 10 years for robbery.
There is the violation of three criteria:
1) the criterion of proportionality of the penalty (the severity of the penalty is proportionate to the seriousness of crime).
2) the criterion of progressivity of the penalty (the more the crime is serious, the more the penalty is severe).
3) the criterion of equal justice for all


We had judges who were fined for violating these criteria.

 

[exchemist]

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?

The original term is "whataboutery", and it seems to have originated in Ireland. It's not an "-ism", really, as it does not denote any system of thought. It's just a disreputable rhetorical device.

 

[PureX]

I have noticed of late that this method of deflection and distraction has become so common that it's happening in advance of an accusation or offense. Like slight of hand, it intends to draw attention away from what one is doing, or is about to do, by accusing someone else of something, real or imagined.

Accusations of voter fraud that doesn't exist in advance of an attempt at election rigging; as an example.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Sometimes, the statement getting the whattabout is a legitimate question or complaint being deflected, in which case it's a weak argument and a dishonorable response.

But today, when we see such egregious hypocrisy regularly, it seems like a perfectly good way to cut the legs out from under the hypocrite. Right now, you've got a Senate full of Republicans who voted to acquit a clearly guilty Trump twice, and voted to not investigate January 6th, complaining that a Supreme Court nominee is soft on crime.

So, the context helps me choose whether it's appropriate or not, and the kinds of statements eliciting the response vary from reasonable to hypocritical.

 

[Stevicus]

The original term is "whataboutery", and it seems to have originated in Ireland. It's not an "-ism", really, as it does not denote any system of thought. It's just a disreputable rhetorical device.

Perhaps. "Disreputable" may be in the eye of the beholder; it depends on the context. However, I often interpret complaints about "whataboutism" (or "whataboutery," if you will) as a tacit admission that the complaining individual has no moral principles - or at least no consistent moral principles. And that doesn't sound very reputable either, in my opinion.

 

[Stevicus]

From a juridical and judicial point of view, whataboutism is absolutely rejected.

Because a judge that condemned a person to 10 years of jail for manslaughter, cannot condemn another person to 10 years for robbery.
There is the violation of three criteria:
1) the criterion of proportionality of the penalty (the severity of the penalty is proportionate to the seriousness of crime).
2) the criterion of progressivity of the penalty (the more the crime is serious, the more the penalty is severe).
3) the criterion of equal justice for all


We had judges who were fined for violating these criteria.

Yes, I agree. It seems that in court, the issue focuses on a specific case, not a generalized debate on philosophy or ethics, which is where complaints of "whataboutism" often come up.

I like the idea of fining judges who misbehave. I don't think we do that here in America, or at least, I've never heard of anything like that happening.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, I agree. It seems that in court, the issue focuses on a specific case, not a generalized debate on philosophy or ethics, which is where complaints of "whataboutism" often come up.

I like the idea of fining judges who misbehave. I don't think we do that here in America, or at least, I've never heard of anything like that happening.

Not that frequently...unfortunately.
The prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case was sanctioned, fortunately.
But I know cases of unpunished misconduct.

 

[Stevicus]

Sometimes, the statement getting the whattabout is a legitimate question or complaint being deflected, in which case it's a weak argument and a dishonorable response.

This may be true, although even then, a weak argument can be easily disposed of without claiming "whataboutism." If, for example, one makes an accusation against someone for some moral failing or wrongdoing, then either they're doing so because they wish to discuss morals and ethics and those who fail to uphold them. Or they're doing so with the intent of character assassination and nothing more.

Those who complain about "whataboutism" are essentially admitting that their focus is not on morals and ethics in general, but more upon their own attempt at character assassination and complaining that the "whataboutist" is stealing their thunder. In my opinion, character assassination and mud-slinging are never legitimate or honorable.

I believe that it's possible to address specific issues, particularly if they're related to morals and ethics, without impugning the reputation of individuals, groups, ideologies, or political systems. The idea of branding and labeling a "villain" might serve some sort of emotional need, but that's really all that it is, in my opinion.

But today, when we see such egregious hypocrisy regularly, it seems like a perfectly good way to cut the legs out from under the hypocrite. Right now, you've got a Senate full of Republicans who voted to acquit a clearly guilty Trump twice, and voted to not investigate January 6th, complaining that a Supreme Court nominee is soft on crime.

So, the context helps me choose whether it's appropriate or not, and the kinds of statements eliciting the response vary from reasonable to hypocritical.

Well, yes, of course, it's very easy to point out the hypocrisy within our own government and other highly-placed individuals in our society. It's the same government which has existed for 246 years now, with the same basic political and economic system that many people claim is the "best in the world."

When people go around thumping their chests about "Captain America" and view our government as a paragon of virtue and the "righter of all the world's wrongs," then it's worthy of a response that might cut them down to size a little bit.

It's people of that ilk who complain about "whataboutism" the most, but as I said earlier in this thread, it would be far easier if people would just willingly and honestly admit that they embrace the principle of "my country, right or wrong." In the area of partisan politics, the same idea can be expressed as "my party, right or wrong." If more people did that, then I daresay that 90% of the BS in politics would probably disappear overnight.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps. "Disreputable" may be in the eye of the beholder; it depends on the context. However, I often interpret complaints about "whataboutism" (or "whataboutery," if you will) as a tacit admission that the complaining individual has no moral principles - or at least no consistent moral principles. And that doesn't sound very reputable either, in my opinion.

I don't think you should. Whataboutery is an attempt to change the subject, onto one where the speaker feels he has the upper hand, rather than addressing the point at issue. For example, if you mention the attacks on schools and hospitals by Putin's army, @Estro Felino will say "What about the influence of Soros on Ukraine?".

 

[F1fan]

Were we talking about Trump or Hillary? There is your deflection.

Both. We can still compare politicians, can't we? We can compare the acts these folks do and examine which is more serious, can't we?

Whataboutism is about EVASION of the criticism of a specific issue/topic/person. I'm not evading anything, rather assessing the seriousness of any given accusation.

The Whataboutism is related to disinformation. If members claimed Hilary did nothing wrong, that all the criticism is just republican men trying to knock down a woman you could counter that with her acts that were considered illegal. In essence you would counter with "what about these acts she did that were deemed illegal"? This would be a valid and credible use of "what about...."

Whataboutism is a deliberate excuse of credible accusations that other peers do not do. If someone brings up trumps coordination with other republicans to get the election results of 2020 overturned a republican might counter with a whataboutism like what about all the election fraud. Yeah, there was none, except by trump and other republicans.