5 ms·

You're being downvoted for engaging in whataboutism, which is a variation of the tu quoque logical fallacy [1]. It's been overused in recent times (especially i

You're being downvoted for engaging in whataboutism, which is a variation of the tu quoque logical fallacy [1]. It's been overused in recent times (especially in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and people are growing tired of it (and rightly so, as it merely derails discussion and fuels flame wars - contrary to the spirit of HN). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

EGreg 4y ago
I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy. If you are running a sports competition, and you are told "please ban these Russian athletes, because Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unprovoked and unjustified", I do not think it is a logical fallacy to ask "can I also ban US athletes for the same reason"? Or to ask "why doesn't the same principle apply across the board?" I have heard ideoogically based people on all sides of an issue use "whataboutism" to escape having to discuss basic logic. If someone is trying to convince you that it's imperative you do X, it's not fallacious to inquire about what the principle behind the imperative is. And why the principle is being applied in this one particular case and not across the board. Otherwise it is "rules for thee, not for me". "But why not for thee too?" "Hey, stop the whataboutism!" But it's even worse than that. Because if US goes halfway around the world and bombs countries to smithereens which present no threat to it, then that's objectively worse than trying to prevent a former ally from joining an enemy alliance and putting nukes on your border. The correct analogy would be the Cuban Missile Crisis, when USA sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuba asked USSR for help, USSR placed nuclear missiles on it, and USA blockaded it and threatened war. One could totally understand USA in that scenario. That's the analogy. Going halfway around the world to bomb countries that don't present a threat to you, is SO MUCH MORE NEEDLESS than what Russia did in Ukraine, that it is all the more deserving of, oh I dunno, 1 athlete being banned somewhere? Where am I wrong?
- kstenerud 4y ago
  > I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy. Please actually read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
  - EGreg 4y ago
    Trust me, not only did I read it, but I also thought through these issues over the years. "Yes, Politician B did do this-or-that immoral thing, but then again so do other politicians. So what's the big deal?" This is not what's being said. What's being said is: We typically want to stay neutral among conflicts. You are pressuring us to take an unprecedented step of banning athletes from country X because country X did an extremely egregious thing B. Sure, let's do it. Can we also ban country Y who did B times 10? No, you can't. If you try we will retaliate! So, you aren't really concerned about the principle. You first pick a target country (e.g. Israel) and then you come up with some spurious reasons which you don't actually believe in, just to bully us into taking this action It's not about "whether it's not a big deal". It's about comparing apples to apples. Having a sense of proportion. "You must eject this person from the group. They farted. That's beyond the pale." "But you have been farting far more, and also punching people in the face, and you are still here. Should I eject you too?" "Stop your Whataboutism! We are only talking about this one person!" THAT is a logical fallacy
    - kstenerud 4y ago
      Actually no, it's about moral shifts. The morality of today is very, very, very different from what it was a mere thousand years ago. Brigandry (killing travelers on the road so that you can take their stuff) was once considered a noble profession, for example. But the world moves on, and morality has a tendency to move in tectonic shifts. Suddenly (it seems), what was okay is no longer okay, because the people say so. "Suddenly", it's not okay to kill passers-by and take their stuff. "Suddenly", it's not okay to treat children any way you please as their parents and masters. "Suddenly", it's only natural that a man doesn't need to be of noble birth to vote. "Suddenly", it's even a woman's right to vote. "Suddenly", apartheid isn't okay anymore. "Suddenly", you're not allowed to kick your dog anymore. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of those "suddenlys". Wars of conquest (i.e. invading and annexing a neighboring country) fell out of favor in the 19th century, with the last major hurrah in the 1930s. The world has moved on, and it's no longer okay to do that. We condemn Russia because we don't allow that sort of behavior anymore. But throwing "what about America doing X and Y?" around would be like protesting anti-apartheid campaigns against South Africa just because racial inequality and violence hadn't been solved in America (in fact, there was a fair bit of whataboutism by those who opposed changing the South African order). It just comes off as crass and self-serving in the end. If you want real change, you push for a movement and solidarity against evil. That's what these Ukrainian woman have done, and it's beautiful to see. The whataboutism that tears down their supports on the other hand, is a most insidious evil, because you're basically telling Americans that they have no right to stand against Russia's evil acts (the call of hypocrisy, tu-quoque). You shame potential allies into inaction against a clear and present evil, which is a horrible thing to do on so many levels.
athrowaw 4y ago
It doesn't seem whataboutism in the comment, as the author says "Russia is a bad actor", so it's not about someone did something before, so it should be accepted now. It's more about non equal treatment of the same bad situation done by different parties. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
- EGreg 4y ago
  not even the same, but far worse action gets no punishment whatsoever "help us punish this murderer" "done". "what about this serial killer? can we punish him too?" "NO! STOP IT WITH YOUR WHATABOUTISM!!"

EGreg 4y ago

I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy. If you are running a sports competition, and you are told "please ban these Russian athletes, because Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unprovoked and unjustified", I do not think it is a logical fallacy to ask "can I also ban US athletes for the same reason"? Or to ask "why doesn't the same principle apply across the board?" I have heard ideoogically based people on all sides of an issue use "whataboutism" to escape having to discuss basic logic. If someone is trying to convince you that it's imperative you do X, it's not fallacious to inquire about what the principle behind the imperative is. And why the principle is being applied in this one particular case and not across the board. Otherwise it is "rules for thee, not for me". "But why not for thee too?" "Hey, stop the whataboutism!" But it's even worse than that. Because if US goes halfway around the world and bombs countries to smithereens which present no threat to it, then that's objectively worse than trying to prevent a former ally from joining an enemy alliance and putting nukes on your border. The correct analogy would be the Cuban Missile Crisis, when USA sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuba asked USSR for help, USSR placed nuclear missiles on it, and USA blockaded it and threatened war. One could totally understand USA in that scenario. That's the analogy. Going halfway around the world to bomb countries that don't present a threat to you, is SO MUCH MORE NEEDLESS than what Russia did in Ukraine, that it is all the more deserving of, oh I dunno, 1 athlete being banned somewhere? Where am I wrong?

kstenerud 4y ago
> I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy. Please actually read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- EGreg 4y ago
  Trust me, not only did I read it, but I also thought through these issues over the years. "Yes, Politician B did do this-or-that immoral thing, but then again so do other politicians. So what's the big deal?" This is not what's being said. What's being said is: We typically want to stay neutral among conflicts. You are pressuring us to take an unprecedented step of banning athletes from country X because country X did an extremely egregious thing B. Sure, let's do it. Can we also ban country Y who did B times 10? No, you can't. If you try we will retaliate! So, you aren't really concerned about the principle. You first pick a target country (e.g. Israel) and then you come up with some spurious reasons which you don't actually believe in, just to bully us into taking this action It's not about "whether it's not a big deal". It's about comparing apples to apples. Having a sense of proportion. "You must eject this person from the group. They farted. That's beyond the pale." "But you have been farting far more, and also punching people in the face, and you are still here. Should I eject you too?" "Stop your Whataboutism! We are only talking about this one person!" THAT is a logical fallacy
  - kstenerud 4y ago
    Actually no, it's about moral shifts. The morality of today is very, very, very different from what it was a mere thousand years ago. Brigandry (killing travelers on the road so that you can take their stuff) was once considered a noble profession, for example. But the world moves on, and morality has a tendency to move in tectonic shifts. Suddenly (it seems), what was okay is no longer okay, because the people say so. "Suddenly", it's not okay to kill passers-by and take their stuff. "Suddenly", it's not okay to treat children any way you please as their parents and masters. "Suddenly", it's only natural that a man doesn't need to be of noble birth to vote. "Suddenly", it's even a woman's right to vote. "Suddenly", apartheid isn't okay anymore. "Suddenly", you're not allowed to kick your dog anymore. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of those "suddenlys". Wars of conquest (i.e. invading and annexing a neighboring country) fell out of favor in the 19th century, with the last major hurrah in the 1930s. The world has moved on, and it's no longer okay to do that. We condemn Russia because we don't allow that sort of behavior anymore. But throwing "what about America doing X and Y?" around would be like protesting anti-apartheid campaigns against South Africa just because racial inequality and violence hadn't been solved in America (in fact, there was a fair bit of whataboutism by those who opposed changing the South African order). It just comes off as crass and self-serving in the end. If you want real change, you push for a movement and solidarity against evil. That's what these Ukrainian woman have done, and it's beautiful to see. The whataboutism that tears down their supports on the other hand, is a most insidious evil, because you're basically telling Americans that they have no right to stand against Russia's evil acts (the call of hypocrisy, tu-quoque). You shame potential allies into inaction against a clear and present evil, which is a horrible thing to do on so many levels.

athrowaw 4y ago

It doesn't seem whataboutism in the comment, as the author says "Russia is a bad actor", so it's not about someone did something before, so it should be accepted now. It's more about non equal treatment of the same bad situation done by different parties. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

EGreg 4y ago
not even the same, but far worse action gets no punishment whatsoever "help us punish this murderer" "done". "what about this serial killer? can we punish him too?" "NO! STOP IT WITH YOUR WHATABOUTISM!!"