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 »
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.
@flipper1966 There's better ways to prove a double standard and looking at your use of whataboutisms what you think are double standards are really just false equivalencies.
Boo took you task on your flawed reasoning pretty well.
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.
