It's often good to stop and consider if you want to continue an discussion. Some questions that look like "whataboutism" might indicate that no, it's not worth continuing. Still, sometimes it's...
It's often good to stop and consider if you want to continue an discussion. Some questions that look like "whataboutism" might indicate that no, it's not worth continuing. Still, sometimes it's useful to think about whether the question is a good one or not. If it's not a good question, what exactly is wrong with it? Is there a better question?
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world
It’s very effective at rhetorically pushing the onus back on an accuser. If you don’t know to keep an eye out for it, you may legitimately start asking yourself, “Why am I limiting the scope of my...
It’s very effective at rhetorically pushing the onus back on an accuser. If you don’t know to keep an eye out for it, you may legitimately start asking yourself, “Why am I limiting the scope of my criticism to this target?” And, sometimes the alternate proposed target is, truly, deserving of criticism!
The crux of this fallacy, to me, is that the world is generally not zero sum. But it takes some effort to think about any given situation, because sometimes whataboutism is legitimate! If you are arguing or critiquing someone for doing something you believe is wrong, and they claim that they are not the only one to do the thing you are arguing against, that could be a valid defense if the context is zero sum! E.g., if there is one cookie left in the jar, and you suspect Bob of taking the cookie, though it was promised to you, Bob could defend himself by saying, “Look, Alice took the last cookie!” And if Alice did actually take the only remaining cookie, you’d justifiably be mistaken for blaming Bob, and his defense would be legitimate. Outside of a zero sum context, however, the argument doesn’t hold. For instance, if you criticize Bob for littering, and he accuses Alice of also littering, this is fallacious whataboutism. There is nothing preventing one person from littering, just because others do it, too.
I think this fallacy is pervasive, and effective on those who don’t expect it, because it’s hard to remain focused on one thing. The rhetorical effect works especially well if the whataboutism has truth. That is, if we take the littering case, if we know Alice actually does litter, it can seem legitimate if Bob deflects by bringing her up as an example when we accuse him. It can be even worse if we ourselves are guilty of what we might accuse another of. Just because you’re a hypocrite doesn’t mean your position is logically invalid! This doesn’t detract at all from the conclusion that littering is bad, and a quick way to deflate the fallacy is to reply that “It’s bad when Alice litters too, but we’re talking about you, Bob.” or “It’s bad when I litter, too. We should both stop it.”
That is valid because in this situation "Alice took the last cookie" has the same effect as "Bob did not take the last cookie". In such a case the fallacy does not apply, because the sentence...
E.g., if there is one cookie left in the jar, and you suspect Bob of taking the cookie, though it was promised to you, Bob could defend himself by saying, “Look, Alice took the last cookie!”
That is valid because in this situation "Alice took the last cookie" has the same effect as "Bob did not take the last cookie". In such a case the fallacy does not apply, because the sentence "Alice took the last cookie" effectively refutes the accusation.
Right, but the form of the defense is the same form as whataboutism. It takes mental effort to reason about which situations that form of defense is valid or invalid, and then more effort to think...
Right, but the form of the defense is the same form as whataboutism. It takes mental effort to reason about which situations that form of defense is valid or invalid, and then more effort to think about what situation you are presently in.
It's often good to stop and consider if you want to continue an discussion. Some questions that look like "whataboutism" might indicate that no, it's not worth continuing. Still, sometimes it's useful to think about whether the question is a good one or not. If it's not a good question, what exactly is wrong with it? Is there a better question?
All valid points.
It’s very effective at rhetorically pushing the onus back on an accuser. If you don’t know to keep an eye out for it, you may legitimately start asking yourself, “Why am I limiting the scope of my criticism to this target?” And, sometimes the alternate proposed target is, truly, deserving of criticism!
The crux of this fallacy, to me, is that the world is generally not zero sum. But it takes some effort to think about any given situation, because sometimes whataboutism is legitimate! If you are arguing or critiquing someone for doing something you believe is wrong, and they claim that they are not the only one to do the thing you are arguing against, that could be a valid defense if the context is zero sum! E.g., if there is one cookie left in the jar, and you suspect Bob of taking the cookie, though it was promised to you, Bob could defend himself by saying, “Look, Alice took the last cookie!” And if Alice did actually take the only remaining cookie, you’d justifiably be mistaken for blaming Bob, and his defense would be legitimate. Outside of a zero sum context, however, the argument doesn’t hold. For instance, if you criticize Bob for littering, and he accuses Alice of also littering, this is fallacious whataboutism. There is nothing preventing one person from littering, just because others do it, too.
I think this fallacy is pervasive, and effective on those who don’t expect it, because it’s hard to remain focused on one thing. The rhetorical effect works especially well if the whataboutism has truth. That is, if we take the littering case, if we know Alice actually does litter, it can seem legitimate if Bob deflects by bringing her up as an example when we accuse him. It can be even worse if we ourselves are guilty of what we might accuse another of. Just because you’re a hypocrite doesn’t mean your position is logically invalid! This doesn’t detract at all from the conclusion that littering is bad, and a quick way to deflate the fallacy is to reply that “It’s bad when Alice litters too, but we’re talking about you, Bob.” or “It’s bad when I litter, too. We should both stop it.”
That is valid because in this situation "Alice took the last cookie" has the same effect as "Bob did not take the last cookie". In such a case the fallacy does not apply, because the sentence "Alice took the last cookie" effectively refutes the accusation.
Right, but the form of the defense is the same form as whataboutism. It takes mental effort to reason about which situations that form of defense is valid or invalid, and then more effort to think about what situation you are presently in.
The presentation is similar, yes. And it certainly takes mental effort to discern these cases.