Using the Term "Whataboutism" Makes You Look a Moron

0  2018-03-20 by Fooomanchu

In the past the equivalent idiotic practice was to say "that's a fallacy" and expect to win arguments. Now we seem to have moved on to the even more lazy and ineffective term of "whataboutism".

Saying "Those politicians are corrupt, I wouldn't trust them, because they have a history of doing XYZ." is much more effective than simply saying "That's an appeal to authority!" The same applies to the term "whataboutism".

Use your words and express your thoughts. If you can't easily explain why "whataboutism" is bad, and why what you're attempting to dismiss is a "whataboutism", then you're always going to be easily dismissed because you're arguing at the level of a child.

39 comments

1  kit8642 2018-03-20

It's a thought policing technique imo.

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

If it is, it sure isn't effective.

1  foolsoftheworld 2018-03-20

R/conspiracy is for cowboys and cowgirls only. It’s the wild Wild West here and no one has time for your dumb ass debate fallacies, you fucking dweebs

1  pilgrimboy 2018-03-20

It probably was recommended in a ShareBlue memo.

1  RMFN 2018-03-20

Thank you. It definitely does!

1  BlackhawkBolly 2018-03-20

Saying "Those politicians are corrupt, I wouldn't trust them, because they have a history of doing XYZ."

Isn't a logical fallacy lol

Are you misunderstanding what the logical fallacies you are talking about mean?

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

Where did I say that was a fallacy? The example is a response to a hypothetical unwritten statement that could be construed as an appeal to authority. I know it's hard, but you have to use your imagination to come up with the fallacious argument.

1  BlackhawkBolly 2018-03-20

If something is a logical fallacy and you can explain why, nothing else should have to be said.

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

Yes, exactly, that's precisely the point.

1  mracidglee 2018-03-20

No, using Whataboutism is what makes you look like a moron. Whataboutism is always used to excuse bad behaviour by saying "you know other people do it too." Which is stupid because the end goal should be no bad behavior.

1  ShillForPutin 2018-03-20

pointing out fact doesn't mean you are excusing. people assume that's what others are doing because worldview emotions and bias. nothing good will happen when people allow emotions to overrule logic and reason.

1  mracidglee 2018-03-20

Pointing out fact that is irrelevant to the original statement is lame and unhelpful.

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

Is pointing out the fact that there's an entire well established big-data analytics industry that has been preying on internet users for political purposes for a long time irrelevant to the current CA topic?

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

using Whataboutism is what makes you look like a moron

Thanks for reinforcing the point.

1  williamsates 2018-03-20

saying "you know other people do it too."

It actually functions the other way around. It is thrown out when a critique is offered by others on someone says we do it to.

Example

"Russia meddled in elections."

"Yes, but we meddled in a lot of elections"

"whataboutism"

/u/seanr9ne posted a link to a good article that demonstrates how the accusation is actually used.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-20/whataboutism-nonsensical-propaganda-term-used-defend-failed-status-quo

1  mracidglee 2018-03-20

If you use it to deflect the initial criticism, it is Whataboutism.

1  williamsates 2018-03-20

The way it is actually used, in terms of propaganda, is not as a criticism of deflection. As in the example above, the initial premise is conceded, it is starting point of the argument, and the importance of it that is contested.

Read the linked article.

The problem arises when governments deflect attention away from their own crimes for which they are actually responsible, by pointing out the crimes of a foreign government. This is indeed propaganda and an evasion of responsibility. Calling out your own government’s hypocrisy in matters of state sanctioned murder abroad is the exact opposite sort of thing.

1  mracidglee 2018-03-20

That's an interesting case. An American saying the US is no better than Russia is not Whataboutism. But because Trump is relatively pro-Putin and anti-CIA, it is closer to Whataboutism.

1  williamsates 2018-03-20

relatively pro-Putin and anti-CIA

Trump is not anti-CIA, nor is he pro-Putin. He practically fellated the agency when he gave his speech at the CIA headquarters.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/

1  mracidglee 2018-03-20

Relative to most politicians and MSM journalists.

1  williamsates 2018-03-20

The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what the opinions of 'most politicians' or MSM journalists really are. I am not familiar with any data that establishes this quantitatively. Nor do we know, where Trump stands, relative to 'most politicians'. What we do know is that he is pro-CIA.

To bring this around to the claims about 'whataboutism' there is no scale that one is closer to it or not. The term is a propaganda tool.

1  mracidglee 2018-03-20

We know very well that MSM journalists for the DNC party line. And we know that congress tends to take the CIA at its word.

1  Gorkildeathgod 2018-03-20

Yes so let's talk about only one side because you know>the end goal should be no bad behavior.

1  seanr9ne 2018-03-20

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-20/whataboutism-nonsensical-propaganda-term-used-defend-failed-status-quo

1  williamsates 2018-03-20

Folks, read this piece, it is vary good...almost clinical.

The problem with this accusation is that this person isn’t switching the subject to bring up another’s transgression to deflect from scrutiny of his or her behavior. In contrast, the person is putting the conversation in its rightful place, which is to question the behavior of one’s own country. When it comes to issues such as nation-state violence, the primary duty of a citizen is not to obsess all day about the violence perpetrated by foreign governments, but to hold one’s own government accountable. This is as true for an American citizen in American as it is for a Russian citizen in Russia.

1  seanr9ne 2018-03-20

Folks, read this piece

Nah, just downvoted without any supplementary discussion :) I apologize to those morons out there that can’t resonate with what’s being said.

1  williamsates 2018-03-20

It is a propaganda term where it is a claimed to be an actual propaganda technique. The earliest actual reference to it I could find is from the economist in 2008.

https://www.economist.com/node/10598774

A very important detail is that it is often presented as a form of the tu quoque fallacy, but it is actually not anything of the sort. In the fallacy, the conclusion is claimed to be false because of hypocrisy, but when an accusation of 'whataboutism' is thrown around, the truth of the conclusion is granted. What is denied is starting point in the argument as the starting point of concern, and this is a legitimate tactic of contention.

It is ultimately meant as a thought stopping cliche.

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

Nice find. Not surprised that it likely originated from the Economist.

1  The_All_Golden 2018-03-20

Yeah its become another stupid Reddit buzzword but you don't want to miss the point behind it. When someone criticizes the GOP here, you will always get a mass of responses going on and on about Clinton or Obama, never getting any direct responses to the situation at hand. Just because someone hates Trump and believes he won the 2016 election through shady and underhanded methods doesn't mean they automatically think Clinton would have been the better choice.

1  Tonisha420 2018-03-20

Just because someone hates Trump and believes he won the 2016 election through shady and underhanded methods doesn't mean they automatically think Clinton would have been the better choice

Thanks for saying this. I often get accused for being a Clinton shill just because I criticize Trump when I've never supported, voted or even thought she was a good candidate.

1  99PercentTruth 2018-03-20

In the past the equivalent idiotic practice was to say "that's a fallacy" and expect to win arguments. Now we seem to have moved on to the even more lazy and ineffective term of "whataboutism".

AKA guise pls stop calling me out for using logical fallacies in place of actual arguments!

1  UnbearablePenguin 2018-03-20

When someone comes into a thread and tries to derail the topic by bringing something else up to deflect, do you know a better term for it?

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

Maybe you should make a normal argument using logic and evidence, instead of having to rely on byte-sized buzzwords? Just a thought.

1  Reign_Wilson 2018-03-20

When someone tries to derail a thread, the last thing on their mind is logic

1  revolution_123 2018-03-20

Holy fuck are you butthurt

1  vts845 2018-03-20

Red Pilled is Worst!

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

Sorry, we can't discuss that term right now, since you're obviously perpetuating meaningless buzzword whataboutism ;)

1  Fhtagnyatta 2018-03-20

Please stop calling me and my comrades out on our forum-sliding techniques! It is making us sad and when we are sad we drink many vodkas!

This is all I see when I read your post.

1  HastoBeAThrowaway0 2018-03-20

...but her e-mails.

1  messiahofmediocrity 2018-03-20

Are you saying that because you have a habit of deflecting and are tired of being called out on it?

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

If it is, it sure isn't effective.

1  Fooomanchu 2018-03-20

Where did I say that was a fallacy? The example is a response to a hypothetical unwritten statement that could be construed as an appeal to authority. I know it's hard, but you have to use your imagination to come up with the fallacious argument.

1  mracidglee 2018-03-20

That's an interesting case. An American saying the US is no better than Russia is not Whataboutism. But because Trump is relatively pro-Putin and anti-CIA, it is closer to Whataboutism.