Whataboutism and the Unreasonable Left

[jnug]

Funny thing to me is that if it's just 'whataboutism', it should be just as easy to point out the difference in the two scenarios as it is to dodge the whole thing with that word. When I see that word, I immediately take the response a little less seriously.

Actually it can be very time consuming to point out the dif in the two scenarios depending on what is being discussed whereas it can be much easier to just dismiss it with one "word" if you are trying to get the discussion back on topic from what is often nothing more than a diversion from topic.

 

[BlueElk]

Funny thing to me is that if it's just 'whataboutism', it should be just as easy to point out the difference in the two scenarios as it is to dodge the whole thing with that word. When I see that word, I immediately take the response a little less seriously.

Of Course - All "Heat No Light" - ENDLESS Differences to generate Heat - Start with - "That was then this is Now" - Endless/Meaningless Heat - Liberal Game Plan.

 

[Perotista]

I want to bring up the topic of the irrational position of "Whataboutism."

I keep seeing this argument/response presented by many in "The Resistance" whenever any negative comparison is made between Trump and some "hero of the Left." Most typically it is some comparison between President Obama's actions while in office compared with President Trump's, but it also encompasses the Clinton's, or any major public figure who may have done something contrary to the way Mr. Trump did/does it.



We see this time and again, examples included border issues of migrant detention, and separation of children. Remember when those pictures of kids kept in "cages" were bandied about...right up until this evidence was found to have actually occurred during the Obama Administration. Not to mention mass deportations, and don't forget those family detentions until a 9th Circuit decision in 2016 forbad kids being held in custody, requiring separation. But mention this and they cry "foul" and "That's whataboutism which has no place in a discussion!"

I'm sure readers can provide other examples, but the point I am trying to make is that IMO many people who argue on the Left seem to think the rules they demand be followed only apply to their opponents.

Such people demand recognition of their own free speech rights; but command silence via allegations of "hate speech" or deflections via "whataboutism" of those who disagree.

Such people demand respect and consideration; but label those who don't support their ideals with complete disrespect, using hateful name-calling and efforts at ostracization.

Such people demand the right to protest spontaneously for what they believe in without limitation or hindrance; but have no problem acting out violently against, or to otherwise restrict those who march against what they believe in.

In short, they claim to be reasonable but act the exact opposite. IMO actions always speak louder than words.

Whataboutism is not a "thing," IMO it is an invention of the Left to stop from having to confront their own arguments being pushed back at them.

This is why I didn't buy into a request back sometime last year from a Forum member asking people to pledge not to use "whataboutism" in future discussions. I knew from experience the rules would only apply to those responding in defense of the current Administration, and somehow be justified as NOT applying to those opposed to it.

The above list of observations is also (as I have clearly posted in my tagline and at the summation of my blog post) why I often simply stop responding in threads.

Actually, I love Whataboutism or comparing today's actions, condemnation, defend to the max with the past. I like to point out votes on the debt ceiling during G.W. Bush's presidency, almost all Democrats voted against raising it, almost all Republicans voted to raise. Switch presidents, Obama comes in, each party does a 180. Under Obama almost all Republicans vote against raising it, almost all Democrats vote to raise. Makes one say Hmm.

Then I love comparing those who condemn and those who defended Bill Clinton's sexcapades to thos who condemn and defend Trump for his along with the allegations towards Kavanaugh. Then recently in a thread, all those who condemn Trump for his bone spur Vietnam draft evasion to those who defended Bill Clinton for his Vietnam draft evasions and vice versa. Now you have the left condemning Trump for his Syria pullout, the right defending him which is completely opposite to Obama's pull out of our troops from Iraq only to put them back in. This is but the tip of the iceberg. One could go on and on and on.

Whataboutism does have a place. Needless to say, if one was sincere about his positions on different subjects, issues, they would be the same. One would have condemned Bill Clinton and Trump for their draft evasions or defended both. One would have condemned Bill Clinton and Trump on their sexcapades or defended both. Raising the debt ceiling, if a party truely believed in what they stood for, it wouldn't matter who is president. They would be voting for raising it or voting against raising during both Obama and G.W. Bush.

Whataboutism shows, at least to me whatever my guy or my party does something, it is good and needs defending. If the other party or the other guy does something almost identical, it's time for condemnation. Whataboutism shows the hypocrisy of both major parties. Whataboutism shows neither party or their members really have a set core of beliefs, it's whatever gives them a political advantage at the time.

My two cents worth.

 

[jnug]

Actually, I love Whataboutism or comparing today's actions, condemnation, defend to the max with the past. I like to point out votes on the debt ceiling during G.W. Bush's presidency, almost all Democrats voted against raising it, almost all Republicans voted to raise. Switch presidents, Obama comes in, each party does a 180. Under Obama almost all Republicans vote against raising it, almost all Democrats vote to raise. Makes one say Hmm.

Then I love comparing those who condemn and those who defended Bill Clinton's sexcapades to thos who condemn and defend Trump for his along with the allegations towards Kavanaugh. Then recently in a thread, all those who condemn Trump for his bone spur Vietnam draft evasion to those who defended Bill Clinton for his Vietnam draft evasions and vice versa. Now you have the left condemning Trump for his Syria pullout, the right defending him which is completely opposite to Obama's pull out of our troops from Iraq only to put them back in. This is but the tip of the iceberg. One could go on and on and on.

Whataboutism does have a place. Needless to say, if one was sincere about his positions on different subjects, issues, they would be the same. One would have condemned Bill Clinton and Trump for their draft evasions or defended both. One would have condemned Bill Clinton and Trump on their sexcapades or defended both. Raising the debt ceiling, if a party truely believed in what they stood for, it wouldn't matter who is president. They would be voting for raising it or voting against raising during both Obama and G.W. Bush.

Whataboutism shows, at least to me whatever my guy or my party does something, it is good and needs defending. If the other party or the other guy does something almost identical, it's time for condemnation. Whataboutism shows the hypocrisy of both major parties. Whataboutism shows neither party or their members really have a set core of beliefs, it's whatever gives them a political advantage at the time.

My two cents worth.

Your "two cents" was a well thought out and posed argument. In fact, I read many of your posts and I don't consider even those you point to as Whataboutism BECAUSE they generally represent well thought out arguments or at least pieces of one.

Truly, Whataboutism is a diversion and a Whataboutism post might be one of about 50-200 keystrokes of just plain "I really don't have anything to add to the actual discussion" blather. Sort of "Let me throw this against the wall and see if it sticks". THAT is Whataboutism.....heat but no light.

 

[Cardinal]

I want to bring up the topic of the irrational position of "Whataboutism."

I keep seeing this argument/response presented by many in "The Resistance" whenever any negative comparison is made between Trump and some "hero of the Left." Most typically it is some comparison between President Obama's actions while in office compared with President Trump's, but it also encompasses the Clinton's, or any major public figure who may have done something contrary to the way Mr. Trump did/does it.

My trigger on this arose from a recent thread about Mr. Trump and the government shutdown over the budget. A Forum member had mentioned that Mr. Obama had also presided over a government shutdown seeking votes for the ACA. Up jumps a couple of members from the Left decrying "whataboutism" has no place in the discussion. Yet the same members have no problem comparing Mr. Obama's successes with Mr. Trump's failures. In such cases the claim is always that it isn't whataboutism for some strange varied reasoning.

We see this time and again, examples included border issues of migrant detention, and separation of children. Remember when those pictures of kids kept in "cages" were bandied about...right up until this evidence was found to have actually occurred during the Obama Administration. Not to mention mass deportations, and don't forget those family detentions until a 9th Circuit decision in 2016 forbad kids being held in custody, requiring separation. But mention this and they cry "foul" and "That's whataboutism which has no place in a discussion!"

I'm sure readers can provide other examples, but the point I am trying to make is that IMO many people who argue on the Left seem to think the rules they demand be followed only apply to their opponents.

Such people demand recognition of their own free speech rights; but command silence via allegations of "hate speech" or deflections via "whataboutism" of those who disagree.

Such people demand respect and consideration; but label those who don't support their ideals with complete disrespect, using hateful name-calling and efforts at ostracization.

Such people demand the right to protest spontaneously for what they believe in without limitation or hindrance; but have no problem acting out violently against, or to otherwise restrict those who march against what they believe in.

In short, they claim to be reasonable but act the exact opposite. IMO actions always speak louder than words.

Whataboutism is not a "thing," IMO it is an invention of the Left to stop from having to confront their own arguments being pushed back at them.

This is why I didn't buy into a request back sometime last year from a Forum member asking people to pledge not to use "whataboutism" in future discussions. I knew from experience the rules would only apply to those responding in defense of the current Administration, and somehow be justified as NOT applying to those opposed to it.

The above list of observations is also (as I have clearly posted in my tagline and at the summation of my blog post) why I often simply stop responding in threads.

Your post is long but contains little substance except to say that you don’t like people accusing you of whataboutism. What would be much more substantive is if you honestly explored your motive for your “whataboutism.” In other words, when the topic is trump and you bring up Clinton, what is the value that bringing up Clinton brings to the discussion?

 

[upsideguy]

So long as you understand that I get to make my own calls, and that sometimes I will be right and you will be wrong.

It is in your best interest to be tolerant and to let folks say what they want to say, and to try to be decent as you do it........"You cant say that" is almost always a problem,,,,,a sign that we have failed at civil conversation.







HAPPY NEW YEAR! :2dancing:

Yes, you can say it if its truly equivalence, but most time it is not. Bear in mind, however, when you go to a "whataboutism" you are conceding the primary point and shifting the argument. To my example above, introducing some perceived lie that Obama may have delivered is acknowledging the point that Trump is a chronic liar.

 

[JustHanging]

Actually, it is a reflection of the Trump cult’s total inability to face reality and endless appetite for deflecting away from whatever subject matter is at hand to shriek “but Clinton” or “but Obama”.

Exactly.

Reality has long been a bitter pill for many a Trump supporter, and now Trump has given them "permission" to completely divest themselves. Of course his supporters are going to do whatever they can to avoid having to face something that has been so unforgiving to them.

 

[upsideguy]

Your entire argument above attacking whataboutism is based on whataboutism.

Where on earth do you get that? I used examples to illustrate my point, but examples are not a 'whataboutism'. Pull the examples out of the statement and it stills stands. The examples are not argument points, just there for illustration.

The main point is introducing a "whataboutism" into an argument is to concede the main point (the proposition being discussed) by diminishing the significance (the uniqueness) of the proposition. Me thinks, even with examples, this whole thing went over the top of your head.

 

[Tigerace117]

You misspelled "butt".

Yep, Trump cultists do seem to have what passes for their brains located in their hindquarters.

 

[Idiometer]

I want to bring up the topic of the irrational position of "Whataboutism."

I keep seeing this argument/response presented by many in "The Resistance" whenever any negative comparison is made between Trump and some "hero of the Left." Most typically it is some comparison between President Obama's actions while in office compared with President Trump's, but it also encompasses the Clinton's, or any major public figure who may have done something contrary to the way Mr. Trump did/does it.

My trigger on this arose from a recent thread about Mr. Trump and the government shutdown over the budget. A Forum member had mentioned that Mr. Obama had also presided over a government shutdown seeking votes for the ACA. Up jumps a couple of members from the Left decrying "whataboutism" has no place in the discussion. Yet the same members have no problem comparing Mr. Obama's successes with Mr. Trump's failures. In such cases the claim is always that it isn't whataboutism for some strange varied reasoning.

We see this time and again, examples included border issues of migrant detention, and separation of children. Remember when those pictures of kids kept in "cages" were bandied about...right up until this evidence was found to have actually occurred during the Obama Administration. Not to mention mass deportations, and don't forget those family detentions until a 9th Circuit decision in 2016 forbad kids being held in custody, requiring separation. But mention this and they cry "foul" and "That's whataboutism which has no place in a discussion!"

I'm sure readers can provide other examples, but the point I am trying to make is that IMO many people who argue on the Left seem to think the rules they demand be followed only apply to their opponents.

Such people demand recognition of their own free speech rights; but command silence via allegations of "hate speech" or deflections via "whataboutism" of those who disagree.

Such people demand respect and consideration; but label those who don't support their ideals with complete disrespect, using hateful name-calling and efforts at ostracization.

Such people demand the right to protest spontaneously for what they believe in without limitation or hindrance; but have no problem acting out violently against, or to otherwise restrict those who march against what they believe in.

In short, they claim to be reasonable but act the exact opposite. IMO actions always speak louder than words.

Whataboutism is not a "thing," IMO it is an invention of the Left to stop from having to confront their own arguments being pushed back at them.

This is why I didn't buy into a request back sometime last year from a Forum member asking people to pledge not to use "whataboutism" in future discussions. I knew from experience the rules would only apply to those responding in defense of the current Administration, and somehow be justified as NOT applying to those opposed to it.

The above list of observations is also (as I have clearly posted in my tagline and at the summation of my blog post) why I often simply stop responding in threads.

Sometimes whataboutism is applicable and relevant, sometimes it is just deflection. Does this really deserve a thread?

 

[Perotista]

Your "two cents" was a well thought out and posed argument. In fact, I read many of your posts and I don't consider even those you point to as Whataboutism BECAUSE they generally represent well thought out arguments or at least pieces of one.

Truly, Whataboutism is a diversion and a Whataboutism post might be one of about 50-200 keystrokes of just plain "I really don't have anything to add to the actual discussion" blather. Sort of "Let me throw this against the wall and see if it sticks". THAT is Whataboutism.....heat but no light.

I kind of took whataboutism as someone replying to a post to defend something Trump done saying, What about Hillary, what about Obama, what about Bill Clinton. I do think at times it does some good to compare the actions of supporters of one to the actions of supporters of the other. If not good, at least informative.

I suppose I expect the impossible. One to be consistent, if one condemned Bill Clinton for being a draft evader, then one should also condemn Trump. If one defended Bill, then one should defend Trump. But it doesn't work that way. The standards are set by the R and the D, not what is right or wrong.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sometimes whataboutism is applicable and relevant, sometimes it is just deflection. Does this really deserve a thread?

Yep, because the context (intended use?) of whataboutism is important.

BTW, did you post something applicable and relevant or simply try to deflect?

 

[Idiometer]

"WHATABOUTISM - Although used by the "Both" Parties, it favors the "Left" as it is ALWAYS used to justify questionable behavior.

Questionable behavior is the Signature of the "Left", hence, the word Liberal."

That's an excellent example of a right wing partisan trying to turn a discussion of one topic into a cluster**** of obfuscation, placing all blame on "the other side."

Good job.
:bravo:

 

[Cardinal]

I kind of took whataboutism as someone replying to a post to defend something Trump done saying, What about Hillary, what about Obama, what about Bill Clinton. I do think at times it does some good to compare the actions of supporters of one to the actions of supporters of the other. If not good, at least informative.

I suppose I expect the impossible. One to be consistent, if one condemned Bill Clinton for being a draft evader, then one should also condemn Trump. If one defended Bill, then one should defend Trump. But it doesn't work that way. The standards are set by the R and the D, not what is right or wrong.

Whataboutism actually does have a formal meaning, though that's gotten lost over the fact that it's been happening so rampantly:

"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, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

To expand on this, there's a few problems, logically speaking, with whataboutism:

1)The "hypocrisy" is always assumed and never supported.

So I say, "Trump is a bad person for raping a school bus full of children!" and the Trump supporter comes back with, "Whatabout when Clinton raped a school bus full of children? The hypocrisy is deafening!"

Well, that begs the question: whose hypocrisy? Mine? Hypocrisy has a definition: saying one thing while doing another. Did I ever defend Clinton raping a school bus full of children? If not, then where is the hypocrisy charge coming from?

2)As the Wiki definition already points out, the whataboutism doesn't even directly refute the argument.

So I say, "Trump is a bad person for raping a school bus full of children!" and the Trump supporter comes back with, "Whatabout when Clinton raped a school bus full of children?"

Which begs the question: so what? Does that mean it's a rape free-for-all now? Can I now rob my neighbor's home because some other guy robbed another person's home? The premise that because a previous person did something bad that it's okay for the current guy to do something bad is preposterous and would lead to a complete breakdown in society. So while it may feel good to argue on an internet forum, it's not something that could ever be practiced in the real world because that would quite literally result in the collapse of civilization.

3)In practice, the whataboutism nearly always fails in its attempt to draw an equivalency.

So I say, "Trump is a bad person for deliberately making a hobby of running over dogs with his car." And the Trump supporter comes back with, "Well, whatabout the time Obama hit a dog with his car when he was in college!"

This is the most common manifestation of whataboutism I see here: the implication that the common practice of a negative behavior is equivalent to the incidental negative action. And you know who that always benefits? You got it: the person who carries out the negative behavior as a matter of habit because he's now "equivalent" to the good person who did a bad thing once (and maybe not even on purpose). If this argument technique were practiced in real world terms, it would, like the previous example, lead to a breakdown in society because at that point concepts like right and wrong no longer exist.

4)And let's be serious. We're all adults here. We know perfectly well that the only reason for that practice of whataboutism, as defined by Wiki, is nothing more than to change the discussion at any cost.

 

[lwf]

I want to bring up the topic of the irrational position of "Whataboutism."

I keep seeing this argument/response presented by many in "The Resistance" whenever any negative comparison is made between Trump and some "hero of the Left." Most typically it is some comparison between President Obama's actions while in office compared with President Trump's, but it also encompasses the Clinton's, or any major public figure who may have done something contrary to the way Mr. Trump did/does it.

My trigger on this arose from a recent thread about Mr. Trump and the government shutdown over the budget. A Forum member had mentioned that Mr. Obama had also presided over a government shutdown seeking votes for the ACA. Up jumps a couple of members from the Left decrying "whataboutism" has no place in the discussion. Yet the same members have no problem comparing Mr. Obama's successes with Mr. Trump's failures. In such cases the claim is always that it isn't whataboutism for some strange varied reasoning.

We see this time and again, examples included border issues of migrant detention, and separation of children. Remember when those pictures of kids kept in "cages" were bandied about...right up until this evidence was found to have actually occurred during the Obama Administration. Not to mention mass deportations, and don't forget those family detentions until a 9th Circuit decision in 2016 forbad kids being held in custody, requiring separation. But mention this and they cry "foul" and "That's whataboutism which has no place in a discussion!"

I'm sure readers can provide other examples, but the point I am trying to make is that IMO many people who argue on the Left seem to think the rules they demand be followed only apply to their opponents.

Such people demand recognition of their own free speech rights; but command silence via allegations of "hate speech" or deflections via "whataboutism" of those who disagree.

Such people demand respect and consideration; but label those who don't support their ideals with complete disrespect, using hateful name-calling and efforts at ostracization.

Such people demand the right to protest spontaneously for what they believe in without limitation or hindrance; but have no problem acting out violently against, or to otherwise restrict those who march against what they believe in.

In short, they claim to be reasonable but act the exact opposite. IMO actions always speak louder than words.

Whataboutism is not a "thing," IMO it is an invention of the Left to stop from having to confront their own arguments being pushed back at them.

This is why I didn't buy into a request back sometime last year from a Forum member asking people to pledge not to use "whataboutism" in future discussions. I knew from experience the rules would only apply to those responding in defense of the current Administration, and somehow be justified as NOT applying to those opposed to it.

The above list of observations is also (as I have clearly posted in my tagline and at the summation of my blog post) why I often simply stop responding in threads.

I think the general idea is that "two wrongs don't make a right." Pointing out a terrible decision by a democrat in the past doesn't absolve a terrible decision being made by a republican in the present. You can point out the hypocrisy of someone who supported a terrible decision in the past all you want, but that isn't a rational argument for a terrible decision you are supporting right now.

'Whataboutism' in the negative sense ("Obama did worse, so you have no room to talk about what Trump did,") is avoiding the argument and using it to point out hypocrisy amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. (No judgment, we all love to do it and it is appropriate for others to call us out on it when we do.) If you want a good defense for 'whataboutism' being applied by someone on the left in a positive sense to past democratic successes vs past or present republican failures, ("Obama managed it, why can't Trump?") the "apples and oranges" defense is almost always apt. Each administration is unique and operates in a novel environment culturally and economically. It's useful to explore what has worked in the past, but there's absolutely no guarantee that it will work again today or in the future. In fact many times past solutions are not appropriate for present and future problems.

*Edit: Looks like Cardinal beat me to it above. Good post.

 

[lwf]

WHATABOUTISM - Although used by the "Both" Parties, it favors the "Left" as it is ALWAYS used to justify questionable behavior.

I would argue that whataboutism always favors the party in power, as it is used to justify questionable behavior that is currently the topic of conversation, which is the province of the "Right" at this point in history.

 

[BlueElk]

"WHATABOUTISM - Although used by the "Both" Parties, it favors the "Left" as it is ALWAYS used to justify questionable behavior.

Questionable behavior is the Signature of the "Left", hence, the word Liberal."

That's an excellent example of a right wing partisan trying to turn a discussion of one topic into a cluster**** of obfuscation, placing all blame on "the other side."

Good job.
:bravo:

The problem and resolution was clearly/correctly stated. The (Liberal) response focused on the problem and ignored the resolution.

"Heat No Light"

AGAIN - "The "Left" only succeeds with endless (nonsense) disruption and the "Right" with resolution."

 

[CriticalThought]

I want to bring up the topic of the irrational position of "Whataboutism."

I keep seeing this argument/response presented by many in "The Resistance" whenever any negative comparison is made between Trump and some "hero of the Left." Most typically it is some comparison between President Obama's actions while in office compared with President Trump's, but it also encompasses the Clinton's, or any major public figure who may have done something contrary to the way Mr. Trump did/does it.

My trigger on this arose from a recent thread about Mr. Trump and the government shutdown over the budget. A Forum member had mentioned that Mr. Obama had also presided over a government shutdown seeking votes for the ACA. Up jumps a couple of members from the Left decrying "whataboutism" has no place in the discussion. Yet the same members have no problem comparing Mr. Obama's successes with Mr. Trump's failures. In such cases the claim is always that it isn't whataboutism for some strange varied reasoning.

We see this time and again, examples included border issues of migrant detention, and separation of children. Remember when those pictures of kids kept in "cages" were bandied about...right up until this evidence was found to have actually occurred during the Obama Administration. Not to mention mass deportations, and don't forget those family detentions until a 9th Circuit decision in 2016 forbad kids being held in custody, requiring separation. But mention this and they cry "foul" and "That's whataboutism which has no place in a discussion!"

I'm sure readers can provide other examples, but the point I am trying to make is that IMO many people who argue on the Left seem to think the rules they demand be followed only apply to their opponents.

Such people demand recognition of their own free speech rights; but command silence via allegations of "hate speech" or deflections via "whataboutism" of those who disagree.

Such people demand respect and consideration; but label those who don't support their ideals with complete disrespect, using hateful name-calling and efforts at ostracization.

Such people demand the right to protest spontaneously for what they believe in without limitation or hindrance; but have no problem acting out violently against, or to otherwise restrict those who march against what they believe in.

In short, they claim to be reasonable but act the exact opposite. IMO actions always speak louder than words.

Whataboutism is not a "thing," IMO it is an invention of the Left to stop from having to confront their own arguments being pushed back at them.

This is why I didn't buy into a request back sometime last year from a Forum member asking people to pledge not to use "whataboutism" in future discussions. I knew from experience the rules would only apply to those responding in defense of the current Administration, and somehow be justified as NOT applying to those opposed to it.

The above list of observations is also (as I have clearly posted in my tagline and at the summation of my blog post) why I often simply stop responding in threads.

My gawd! My post was more jest than serious. I think I am going to start using whataboutism in every post if this is the response it gets. That is all we have heard from the right for two years, and one trollish joke from me leads to a dissertation of butthurt.

 

[Perotista]

Whataboutism actually does have a formal meaning, though that's gotten lost over the fact that it's been happening so rampantly:

"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, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

To expand on this, there's a few problems, logically speaking, with whataboutism:

1)The "hypocrisy" is always assumed and never supported.

So I say, "Trump is a bad person for raping a school bus full of children!" and the Trump supporter comes back with, "Whatabout when Clinton raped a school bus full of children? The hypocrisy is deafening!"

Well, that begs the question: whose hypocrisy? Mine? Hypocrisy has a definition: saying one thing while doing another. Did I ever defend Clinton raping a school bus full of children? If not, then where is the hypocrisy charge coming from?

2)As the Wiki definition already points out, the whataboutism doesn't even directly refute the argument.

So I say, "Trump is a bad person for raping a school bus full of children!" and the Trump supporter comes back with, "Whatabout when Clinton raped a school bus full of children?"

Which begs the question: so what? Does that mean it's a rape free-for-all now? Can I now rob my neighbor's home because some other guy robbed another person's home? The premise that because a previous person did something bad that it's okay for the current guy to do something bad is preposterous and would lead to a complete breakdown in society. So while it may feel good to argue on an internet forum, it's not something that could ever be practiced in the real world because that would quite literally result in the collapse of civilization.

3)In practice, the whataboutism nearly always fails in its attempt to draw an equivalency.

So I say, "Trump is a bad person for deliberately making a hobby of running over dogs with his car." And the Trump supporter comes back with, "Well, whatabout the time Obama hit a dog with his car when he was in college!"

This is the most common manifestation of whataboutism I see here: the implication that the common practice of a negative behavior is equivalent to the incidental negative action. And you know who that always benefits? You got it: the person who carries out the negative behavior as a matter of habit because he's now "equivalent" to the good person who did a bad thing once (and maybe not even on purpose). If this argument technique were practiced in real world terms, it would, like the previous example, lead to a breakdown in society because at that point concepts like right and wrong no longer exist.

4)And let's be serious. We're all adults here. We know perfectly well that the only reason for that practice of whataboutism, as defined by Wiki, is nothing more than to change the discussion at any cost.

I get you, but here is the thing I was getting at. Example Bill Clinton's sexcapades. I saw Fienstien, Schumer, Murray, Pelosi and others, defend Bill to the max while Republicans in congress at the time condemned him and tried to impeach Bill. Those defending Bill said his sexcapades were no ones business but Bill's and his wife. Then comes Trump, Those who defended Bill to the max now want to condemn Trump to the max while those who tried to crucify Bill are now defending him.

My point being, either sexcapades is okay with both or isn't okay with both. Personally, I can't see where one can condone one, just because of the R or D and then condemn the other. One way or the other. Same with the Vietnam draft evasion. Myself, I didn't give a flying hoot about who Bill or Trump laid or if either evaded the Vietnam draft. I didn't vote for neither one, but the draft or the sexcapades weren't the reason why I didn't.

I think it is germane, at least to me to know how one came down on Bill, if they were old enough and how one is coming down on Trump. Is it all about the R and or the D, all about my guy vs. your guy or is it that you really care about the the issue at hand. That you are willing to condemn both the R and the D or defend the R and the D. Is you view or stance strictly a partisan one with no merits to what actually happened or is happening?

Perhaps I am guilty as your definition of whataboutism. But what I want is consistency. What I want to know is evading the draft an important issue with you or is it just about trying to take political advantage of the situation at hand. That you really don't give a dang about evasion at all, you just want to rag on the person.

 

[JustHanging]

AGAIN - "The "Left" only succeeds with endless (nonsense) disruption and the "Right" with resolution."

I suppose if you live in a bubble where Trump and Fox and Friends define reality, this might appear to be true.

To those of us capable of dealing with reality, not so much.

 

[Cardinal]

I get you, but here is the thing I was getting at. Example Bill Clinton's sexcapades. I saw Fienstien, Schumer, Murray, Pelosi and others, defend Bill to the max while Republicans in congress at the time condemned him and tried to impeach Bill. Those defending Bill said his sexcapades were no ones business but Bill's and his wife. Then comes Trump, Those who defended Bill to the max now want to condemn Trump to the max while those who tried to crucify Bill are now defending him.

My point being, either sexcapades is okay with both or isn't okay with both. Personally, I can't see where one can condone one, just because of the R or D and then condemn the other. One way or the other. Same with the Vietnam draft evasion. Myself, I didn't give a flying hoot about who Bill or Trump laid or if either evaded the Vietnam draft. I didn't vote for neither one, but the draft or the sexcapades weren't the reason why I didn't.

I think it is germane, at least to me to know how one came down on Bill, if they were old enough and how one is coming down on Trump. Is it all about the R and or the D, all about my guy vs. your guy or is it that you really care about the the issue at hand. That you are willing to condemn both the R and the D or defend the R and the D. Is you view or stance strictly a partisan one with no merits to what actually happened or is happening?

Perhaps I am guilty as your definition of whataboutism. But what I want is consistency. What I want to know is evading the draft an important issue with you or is it just about trying to take political advantage of the situation at hand. That you really don't give a dang about evasion at all, you just want to rag on the person.

Do you believe that everybody who starts a thread that's critical of Trump is required to first list their position on every human being that preceded that topic?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I get you, but here is the thing I was getting at. Example Bill Clinton's sexcapades. I saw Fienstien, Schumer, Murray, Pelosi and others, defend Bill to the max while Republicans in congress at the time condemned him and tried to impeach Bill. Those defending Bill said his sexcapades were no ones business but Bill's and his wife. Then comes Trump, Those who defended Bill to the max now want to condemn Trump to the max while those who tried to crucify Bill are now defending him.

My point being, either sexcapades is okay with both or isn't okay with both. Personally, I can't see where one can condone one, just because of the R or D and then condemn the other. One way or the other. Same with the Vietnam draft evasion. Myself, I didn't give a flying hoot about who Bill or Trump laid or if either evaded the Vietnam draft. I didn't vote for neither one, but the draft or the sexcapades weren't the reason why I didn't.

I think it is germane, at least to me to know how one came down on Bill, if they were old enough and how one is coming down on Trump. Is it all about the R and or the D, all about my guy vs. your guy or is it that you really care about the the issue at hand. That you are willing to condemn both the R and the D or defend the R and the D. Is you view or stance strictly a partisan one with no merits to what actually happened or is happening?

Perhaps I am guilty as your definition of whataboutism. But what I want is consistency. What I want to know is evading the draft an important issue with you or is it just about trying to take political advantage of the situation at hand. That you really don't give a dang about evasion at all, you just want to rag on the person.

I'm glad you posted this, because it emphasizes a point I tried to make in the examples I provided in the OP.

I pointed out that at one time photos of the children of illegal migrant's locked in "cages" were being used to slam Trump's immigration policies. However, once it was discovered that those photos were from the Obama era not only did the Left "shut up" but they did their best to deflect, excuse, and justify followed by denial, and doubling down of other "discoveries." Now, if someone tries to point out that things like this were done by the prior administration when arguing a case of current actions, the immediate response is as stated "That's 'whataboutism' and has no relevance to the current situation."

I tend to try to avoid comparisons, and agree that two wrongs don't make a right; but sometimes I have no problem using them against members who do so first. I think it is disingenuous to cry "deflection" or "Tu Quoque" when one's opponent started us down that trail.

As stated, 90% of the time I just stop responding because there is no argument to refute. However, sometimes I believe a swift retort to show the hypocrisy of the position is merited.

 

[Perotista]

Do you believe that everybody who starts a thread that's critical of Trump is required to first list their position on every human being that preceded that topic?

No, but those discussion I get into, I want to know if the poster or thread is just about ragging on Trump or is the poster serious about the issue. If I determine before I even get involved or reply to a post about Trump that those who are posting just want to rag on him for any and all reasons, I by pass that thread and posts. Go on to some topic or thread I think I can have a decent discussion on.

I think where I got started here was on a thread about Trump being a Vietnam evader. I replied as to my position, I didn't care. That was 50 years ago. When someone my age replied to one my post basically stating Trump was scum for evading the draft because he served in Vietnam. I said, okay, how did you feel about Bill Clinton evading the draft. I wanted to find out if evading the draft was important, a decisive issue for one and all or was it just because of Trump. Depending on his answer, I would then decide which tact or approach to take if I took one at all or simply dropped the poster as nothing more than someone who wants to condemn Trump no matter what.

I do that. I dropped out of the discussion because the guy was defending Bill and condemning Trump. Just partisan BS in my book. Not worth the time and effort.

 

[Doug1943]

Most of the "whataboutisms" that are presented here are false equivalences.....

......As such they often require someone to point out that the "whataboutism" is not an applicable to what is being done now. Usually that false equivalence breaks down in order of magnitude. For example, if someone points out Trump's chronic lying, we will get a "all politicians lie" with "what about Obama, who told us we can keep your doctor"..... well we can go down rabbit hole of explaining that really wasn't a "lie", or we could ask the poster to reach down and come up with 1000 other lies of Trump to match the list the Washington Post has.... but both of those arguments are distractions to the main point, which in this case was "Trump is a chronic liar"........

Actually, in debate theory a "whataboutism" is, in essence, a concession of the main proposition with an attempt to minimize that concession by attacking its significance. For example, if an officer pulls you over from speeding and you know you were speeding, you are likely to challenge the officer for picking you out from the traffic, because you know your "I wasn't speeding" argument was going to go know where, so you come up with a whataboutism... "what about the Beamer that past me..."..... ......you see, you have conceded the point you were speeding by choosing, instead, to diminish that point by saying 'everyone else was doing it'. It is, in essence, a "yes, but ... [what about] response.

Whataboutisms, when truly equivalent, are an effective debate technique to use when you can't defend the attack on the primary proposition. Use them when your hand is otherwise weak..... and a whataboutism that isn't an equivalent is both a concession of the main point while leaving you exposed to be questioned on the command of the issue in the first place. When I see a "whataboutism" based on a false equivalence, its pretty clear to me that the poster has no command of the issue at hand and is merely flailing away.

Use them at your rhetorical risk.

This is a well-argued explication of "whataboutism". And the first sentence is probably true, in current debates: deflecting criticism from 'X', an action you support, by pointing to 'Y', an action supported by, or at least not repudiated by, your opponent, assumes that 'X' and 'Y' are equivalent. If they're not, then this tactic should lose most of its effectiveness.

(Thus, if a Nazi apologist counters a reference to Auschwitz by doing a 'whatabout' with repect to Manzanar , he should be seen to have lost the argument, since they are not strongly equivalent. (There is, however, a weak equivalence -- in both cases an entire ethnic group was assumed to be potentially treasonous, and this possibility was not such a controversial assumption seventy years ago -- the concept of group identity as the essence of an individual began weakening rapidly after that, although it recently has been growing again.)

And although I don't follow Trump/anti-Trump debates very much (I'm not strong enough), I am quite willing to believe that Trump defenders use a lot of false equivalences in defense of the President.

However, the validity of this tactic becomes interesting when there is an equivalence. In the speeding case cited above, although you have conceded that you were speeding, you have at least raised a valid point about the fairness of your own ticket -- assuming that the officer could have ticketed the Beamer but chose to pick on you. In effect, you have opened up a parallel argument, possibly a more important one, since upholding the rule of law -- its equal applicability to everyone -- is far more important than enforcing traffic regulations.

Also, the 'whatabout' argument could be construed this way: If your guy has done X, which your opponent is denouncing, you can either defend X on its supposed merits, trying to show that it is not a crime, or, you can argue this way: "You say my guy has committed a crime when he did X. But you effectively endorsed doing something equivalent when your guy did Y. Therefore, you must believe that doing X, or Y, is not a crime."

You haven't shown that X is not a crime, but you have shown that your opponent doesn't have moral standing in accusing your guy of committing a crime. Unlike the speeding case, you haven't admitted that X is a crime, either. You may actually believe that it is. (But, I repeat, this is when there actually is an equivalence between X and Y. In real cases involving human activity, this is almost always extremely difficult to prove to everyone's satisfaction.)

 

[Cardinal]

No, but those discussion I get into, I want to know if the poster or thread is just about ragging on Trump or is the poster serious about the issue. If I determine before I even get involved or reply to a post about Trump that those who are posting just want to rag on him for any and all reasons, I by pass that thread and posts. Go on to some topic or thread I think I can have a decent discussion on.

I think where I got started here was on a thread about Trump being a Vietnam evader. I replied as to my position, I didn't care. That was 50 years ago. When someone my age replied to one my post basically stating Trump was scum for evading the draft because he served in Vietnam. I said, okay, how did you feel about Bill Clinton evading the draft. I wanted to find out if evading the draft was important, a decisive issue for one and all or was it just because of Trump. Depending on his answer, I would then decide which tact or approach to take if I took one at all or simply dropped the poster as nothing more than someone who wants to condemn Trump no matter what.

I do that. I dropped out of the discussion because the guy was defending Bill and condemning Trump. Just partisan BS in my book. Not worth the time and effort.

How the question about Clinton works in practice is that the debate is now about Clinton and not Trump. And I can demonstrate this easily enough by arguing that Clinton didn't actually avoid the draft. And perhaps in response you argue that he did...and voila! The thread is derailed. The question also has the ancillary effect of "normalizing" the draft dodging that Trump did, which of course is the point.

So you can say that it's just about knowing whether the poster is being consistent, but in practice it's about the distraction.