1. I explicitly said I agree with the broader point 2. The fallacious form of "what about ..." is trying to dismiss problem X without addressing it by raising

1. I explicitly said I agree with the broader point 2. The fallacious form of "what about ..." is trying to dismiss problem X without addressing it by raising problem Y. I identified the article's concern as being part of a larger erosion of rule-based good-faith behavior, which I agree should be addressed. But I think the more effective way is from the top down. I'm _not_ saying that people should bring their dogs into restaurants until the government is no longer corrupt. I _am_ saying that this is the most pedantic, narrow way to go about improving anything (and possibly virtue signalling about disabilities without input from those people, and from policing other people's behavior in a way that comes off as self-righteous without achieving anything.) 3. Merely pointing at people and labeling them as what-abouting is itself a fallacious way of avoiding confronting that person's argument. Again returning to that wikipedia article: > Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy. > Abe Greenwald pointed out that even the first accusation leading to the counteraccusation is an arbitrary setting, which can be just as one-sided and biased, or even more one-sided than the counter-question "what about?" Thus, whataboutism could also be enlightening and put the first accusation in perspective. I.e. while I maintain that I am literally not using it in this instance, I nevertheless I find the impulse to loudly label something "whataboutism!" as a way to avoid engaging with a critique to also be a lazy fallacy.