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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
@MistyCee How would you counter somebody who is holding you up to a double standard or is scapegoating? Let's say your supervisor criticizes you for something that she doesn't criticize in your coworkers. Your supervisor would be scapegoating you, wouldn't she? The issue is not the moral equivalence of the thing complained of. The issue is the critic's invidious scapegoating.
@flipper1966 I'm not at all sure that's "scapegoating," but leaving that aside....
How is selective prosecution a defense?
It might be, with more, as in, if I didn't know what I did was wrong, and it might be relevant in terms of a mitigating factor to the punishment, but on face value, I'd call it a separate wrong.
Let's say it was because I'm black. Discriminating against me, and not others who embezzled client funds might be wrong, and that might bein violation of my civil rights, but it has nothing to do with whether I embezzled the funds.
It's interesting that you said:
[quote] The issue is not the moral equivalence of the thing complained of. The issue is the critic's invidious scapegoating. [/quote]
I'll buy that the whatabout may be worthy of discussion, but without connecting it to the point at hand, it's changing the subject to something not yet relevant.
I get it. The person using the whatabout doesnt want to answer the question. Why? Is it because they can't, won't, or because of they answered it first and tried to plead two wrongs, it would be obvious what they're doing?
Practically, I think a whatabout should usually require a foundation if objected to.
@MistyCee I'm focusing on the issue of scapegoating. I ask once again. How would you counter somebody who is holding you up to a double standard or is scapegoating? Let's say your supervisor criticizes you for something that she doesn't criticize in your coworkers. How would you reply to your supervisor?
@flipper1966 I'm still not sure I'd call that scapegoating, exactly, but to answer your question, pointing out that the other kids were doing it too shouldn't, in general, be a defense.
Might I bring it up? Sure, maybe in pleading ignorance or mistake, but it shouldn't, without more be a defense.
"I'm not sorry if I did it, but if I was doing 60 in a school zone, I'm pissed that you let the car ahead of me speed by before pointing your speed gun at me. Your crooked, biased, and racist for stopping me and not the black guy, and this is the worst traffic stop in the history of our country. Someone should take out your family for doing this to me, the best driver ever on this road."
Now, let's back up. If this cop is only stopping White people, maybe my civil Rights have been infringed, and maybe I could bring, or at least, threaten the cop with a 1983 suit which might cost him his job, and he might not write me up. But legally, its not a defense, and it shouldn't be.
@MistyCee The "what about" I am talking about is not a defense. It is a way of pointing out a double standard or scapegoating. Double standards and scapegoating are not the same, true. But they are related forms of unfair blaming. The scapegoat is held out as the only blameworthy individual. Double standards make the victim more blameworthy than others who have done the same of similar things.
Double standards and scapegoating are intertwined. By the way, did you enjoy your dinner?
This is actually pretty interesting, and a different take on scapegoating than what I've have seen before as far as the scapegoat acting out because he's getting blamed more then the other kids.
But, to be clear, are you saying that the kid shouldn't be blamed for what he's actually done, because he's got bad parents who blame him, but not his siblings?
Seems to me like family therapy is a great idea, but when the kid acts out and goes on a mass shooting spree, I'd just as soon it be inpatient therapy where he can't check himself out because he feels the need to act out again.
@MistyCee Again, I am focusing on the possible bias of the person doing the blaming and whether the [b][i][u]condemnation[/u][/i][/b] of the actual bad acts of the scapegoat is a rationalization of underlying animus against the scapegoat by the person doing the blaming.
@flipper1966 Hmm. What exactly is the benefit of changing the subject, though?
I can see that sometimes, there might be, like for negotiation or psychological purposes to let both parties know their hands aren't clean, but that's kind of what I'm saying when I say that usually, without more, a whatabout is a suspect change of subject.
@MistyCee No change in subject. The thrust of my question was the double standards of people who condemn the actions of one person or group -- but downplay or ignore the same or similar actions in others. Go back to the original post. The question talks about double standards.
Here's part of what I copied in the original post. Double standards.
@flipper1966 I get it, but you're still changing the subject by pointing out the double standard and if you use the whatabout, I think, as a matter of common decency and respect, you should explain the relevance of the double standard to the question you're refusing to answer.
Hell, it might be even more honest to say that you reject the relevance of the question your asked and assert that your whatabout is a more important issue.
@MistyCee In simple terms the post presents the issue: [i]A whatabout is permissible to point out the double standard of a person who condemns one party but not another party in a situation in which both parties are blameworthy. [/i][b][u]The post assumes that the two parties are both blameworthy. I don't dispute that. [/u][/b] I am implicitly asking: how does a person who is being scapegoated avoid pointing out the disparity of someone condemning her behavior and not the equally bad behavior of another person who is not being blamed. How does the scapegoated party avoid using a [i]whatabout[/i]? That is an important question in understanding racism, by the way, an important element of which is scapegoating and double standards.
