Whataboutism: Are there times when you can use it?
Whataboutism denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation.
If you criticize an Israeli about his government's treatment of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and he replies, "What about Myanmar or the Uyghurs in China" he might be silenced with the accusation "[i]Whataboutism![/i]" In fact, whataboutism is a perfectly acceptable response to counter a double standard or scapegoating. An essential feature of anti-Semitism (or any scapegoating strategy, such as racism) is the double standard. Blacks are often held to a higher standard than whites. Often, the only way to point out a double standard is a "whatabout." What does that tell you about the whataboutism fanatics--those who keep crying out[i] Whataboutism![/i]? Is the accusation of whataboutism a favorite of people who like to scapegoat others? One wonders.
Here's a permissible what about:
A pro-Israel Facebooker posted this in reference to the double standard that Israel is held to. Atrocities, unfortunately, occur throughout the world. Yet, the critical finger seems to point with special insistence to Israel's war crimes, as if that (majority-Jewish) country were a repository of evil in the world.
The issue here is the double standard and its cousin, scapegoating.
So ok, those other countries have war crimes, does that fact mean Israel does not even have to answer for it's war crimes?
Whataboutism does not absolve anyone of having to answer to the initial charge or ignore it.
So what if these other countries have war crimes? They have also been called to task as in Syria, as in Ukraine, as in Yemen. Uighur treatment in China is well known and remarked on.
Sanction were placed on Myanmar. The regional blocks have tried to bring a more binding resolution and have rebuked the Myanmar government.
Israel, shouldn't by nature of being a majority Jewish nation be allowed to get away with anything any other country is held accountable for. It is NOT special in anyway shape or form. Especially not by international law.
Do they really want to be mentioned in the same basket as all those other countries who commit horrible acts?
@Longpatrol I'll take a look. Have you ever heard the Chinese referred to as "The Jews of the East" because of their prosperous communities all over Southeast Asia? I understand these prosperous Chinese are despised in the countries they live.
So first of all, whataboutism isn't calling out hypocrisy. Whataboutism is defending something by bringing up something else. If someone were to defend Israel by saying, [i]well what about China?[/i] That would be whataboutism.
Now as for this point: [i]"A pro-Israel Facebooker posted this in reference to the double standard that Israel is held to. Atrocities, unfortunately, occur throughout the world. Yet, the critical finger seems to point with special insistence to Israel's war crimes, as if that (majority-Jewish) country were a repository of evil in the world."[/i] The difference is that America is funding Israel's many war crimes. Yes, China and Saudi Arabia are also authoritarian countries that don't have human rights, yet we still do business with them. However, we're not funding China or Saudi Arabia. When people protest against Israel, it's usually about how their own government is aiding Israel in their genocide.
@flipper1966 No, because Gaza is part of Israel. Israel controls the movement of Gazans, as well as what resources are allowed in Gaza. Whereas Egypt is just not accepting migrants from Gaza. Both countries are in the wrong, but what Israel is doing is infinitely worse.
@flipper1966 Again, Gaza is part of Israel, not Egypt. Egypt keeps people from taking goods from Egypt into Gaza, whereas Israel will intercept goods being sent to Gaza from overseas. Also, as that entry implies, Egypt generally just blocks weapons from getting into Gaza. They don't block aide, like Israel does.
I do hear you, but not addressing the issue at hand or the question on the table, is questionable, at least, under any circumstances.
And far too often, even people intending to use a what's out to try and articulate the relevance of the double standard don't or can't even try to get there.
Instead, they're basically arguing that two wrongs make a right, or that one wrong excuses another wrong. For a whatabout to be relevant and productive, imo, there has to be more to it than saying both sides have dirty hands.
For example, suppose Israel is held to a different standard? So what? Does that justify other conduct? Mitigate it somehow?
I get that whatabouts can be used to make valid and productive points, but more often then not, they aren't. They tend to disrespect the debate and the debaters, distract and are all too often used to persuade lazy or stupid people to disengage and not think the actual important issues through.
Just my two cents, and I like your post, by the way.
Last point first: In regards to Myanmar, people generally know what the media sees fit to report. It’s the same reason that while not all children who go missing have blonde hair and blue eyes (probably not even most), the ones who do are most likely to appear in the news.
Often a "whataboutist" argument is used with false equivalency. I saw that after Jan 6, where people tried to compare the protests about the number of police killing unarmed citizens with the people who overran a government building at the urging of their candidate because [b]he[/b] lost an election.
In 1964, years before Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank, a psychoanalyst wrote a psychoanalytical study of anti-Semitism. In that paper he addresses the issue of double standards applied to Jews generally. Why it is that certain actions perpetrated by Jews are condemned, while the same or similar actions by others are ignored, as if Jews are required to be perfect.
Whataboutism are 99% lazy deflections to avoid actually addressing the topic at hand. It's a justification because they do it to while never addressing the actual morality and justness of the actions.
The rare times a whataboutism actually has any clout at all is when it is reference to two sides on the same issue during the same action. Example: "He hit me". "What about you hitting him first?"
That's really the lone exception when it actually works as an argument.
There are authorities who say that using a [i]whatabout[/i] is perfectly acceptable to point out a double standard. I think Boo said that already.
[quote]Several commentators have also noted that whataboutism accusations themselves can be used as method of deflection in debates. Professor of journalism Christian Christensen argued that whataboutism accusations can enable double standards by dismissing criticisms of one's own behavior by focusing on those of others, while [b][u][i]whataboutism itself can be useful in pointing out double standards and contradictions present in society. [/i][/u][/b] Christensen cited the example Noam Chomsky being accused of whataboutism when Chomsky pointed out the double standards in Western leaders' condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo attacks by Islamic extremists, and their eulogies for Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, in spite of their shared views in Islamic fundamentalism and disregard for human rights. In such cases, state violence and human rights violations by "them", i.e. opponents of the Western world, are often framed as innate and systemic, while similar violence by "us" i.e. the Western world and its allies, are framed as necessary evils to defend the democratic system.
@flipper1966 Like is said on the exceptionally rare occasion, yet what you are attempting to do here is use it to deflect and make false equivalencies.
It works on the rare occasion " when we are talking about the same two sides, in the same context, in the same issue, over the same situation.
