10 ms·

> Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charg

• foverzar 5y ago
  The idea of "whataboutism" and attempting to present it as something inherently wrong awfully seems like a convenient way to dismiss uncomfortable points of the discussion and turn it into yet another two minutes hate. Comparing how different agents deal with similar problems is not a thoughtcrime, you know. It is quite a healthy way of understanding how such problems arise and how to deal with them.
  • Jerrrry 5y ago
    whatboutism is whataboutism
    • pphysch 5y ago
      "Whataboutism" was popularized by Western propagandists at the height of the Cold War to deal with the uncomfortable reality that the USA and USSR, as modern empires competing for global economic/military/ideological domination, had far more in common than either would like to admit. Food for thought.
    • foverzar 5y ago
      So where exactly do you draw the line between "whataboutism" and asserting similarities?
      • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Whataboutism is not "compare and contrast". It's "shut up" or at best "look at the wookie". Not every "let's look at what other countries do" is whataboutism. One-line "X does Y" almost always is. (Longer posts can also be, but the one-liner is a heavy signal.)
      • Tostino 5y ago
        If there are actual comparisons between them, it's much less likely to be "whataboutism".
        • guerrilla 5y ago
          This doesn't answer the question, it's literally begging the question by assuming there aren't such similarities.
      • toomanyrichies 5y ago
        If someone wants to assert those similarities in a separate conversation, that's fine. Trying to derail an existing conversation about the actions of one country by mentioning actions of another country is a distraction at best, and arguing in bad faith at worst.
        • avgcorrection 5y ago
          One man’s “distraction” is another man’s “broadening the conversation”.
          • toomanyrichies 5y ago
            Unless the person started the conversation, it's not theirs to "broaden".
      • georgeecollins 5y ago
        The point is that if you disagree, counter the argument. Asserting similarities does not counter the argument. If I say: "Bob is bad because he steals apples." Saying "But you also steal apples!" does not counter the argument at all. It's changing the subject.
        • FpUser 5y ago
          >"It's changing the subject." If you do in fact steal the apples then no. It is calling you a hypocrite and having little moral standing to talk about the subject because you lack the integrity. If you were genuinely concerned about the fact of stealing the apples you should be working toward the easiest way of reducing said theft. Namely stop doing it yourself and then start worry about Bob.
        • LudwigNagasena 5y ago
          It counters the isolated demand for rigor and calls for consistency in application of moral principles.
        • antifa 5y ago
          It correctly asks "why are we obsessed with Bob and only prosecuting crimes he commits?"
• tehjoker 5y ago
  The American media is attempting to frame China as worth of fighting over Taiwan by demarcating it as exceptionally evil by demonstrating that it does things that no acceptable country would do. Unfortunately for that argument, usually the US is doing something more exceptional and extreme than the demonstrated behavior.
  • throw10920 5y ago
    > usually the US is doing something more exceptional and extreme than the demonstrated behavior Actually, it's almost always the opposite. CCP requiring Chinese companies to hand over all user data unencrypted > USG occasionally sending NSLs to specific companies for information on specific persons. CCP stealing IP from the US, EU, Japan, and other countries > ???. CCP Operation Fox Hunt[1] > ???. CCP police threatening the family of a student in the US speaking about Tianamen Square[2] > ???. CCP hiring massive numbers of 50c posters to write hundreds of millions of social media posts under false aliases > USG operating Free Radio Asia with the explicit notice that it's controlled by the government. CCP restricting children to three hours of video games a week > USG preventing those under age 21 from smoking or drinking. CCP massacring unarmed students in Tiananmen Square with tanks > ???. CCP censoring all information about Tiananmen Square inside the Great Firewall > USG asking newspapers not to publish classified information. CCP operating a concentration camp in Xinjing with about a million people indefinitely in it for no reason other than their religion > USG holding a few thousand refugees in cages for a limited time until they can be returned to their country because they crossed the border illegally. CCP blackmailing various companies for stating that Taiwan is a separate country > ???. CCP invading Taiwan for holding the former rulers of the country that fled after a bunch of murderous revolutionaries overthrew the government and killed millions of people > USG invading Afghanistan to find a terrorist group that flew planes into our buildings and killed thousands. (note that in the first case, the perpetrators (or associates thereof) are doing the invasion, while in the second case, it's the victims). In almost every single case that China is doing something bad, America's equivalent is either far less bad or nonexistent. Even beyond that - no country is perfect (especially not the US), but when the USG (or governments of most other countries) does something bad, the citizens usually get angry about it, and the officials responsible either try to hide or eventually reverse course. With the CCP, the citizens defend it, and the officials claim that they're actually doing the right thing, deny that it exists at all (e.g. the Uyghur concentration camps), or counter with misinformation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/Purdue/comments/ri95tp/in_response_to_president_daniels_letter_and/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Purdue/comments/ri95tp/in_response_...
• avgcorrection 5y ago
  It’s not a logical fallacy. It’s rhetorical tactic. Whataboutism is often used to generalize the subject, which isn’t a fallacy.
• trasz 5y ago
  It's not that, though. This is about showing that something that's being painted as a terrible abomination is, in fact, perfectly normal behaviour, and the whole story is essentially an exercise in double standards.
• LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  I never understood why it would be considered a fallacy.