Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by vitno | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

vitno

Whataboutism is a lazy rhetoric device, the term was literally coined by Kasparov about Soviet dictator apologists.

View on HN

This is the definitive analysis of "whataboutism":

https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whatab...

What about other analysis?

This also seems definitive: https://cjlockett.com/2021/01/10/the-rhetorical-laziness-of-...

Too much on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand to be definitive. He concludes that every example of a centrist democrat doing whataboutism is fine and every example of anyone else doing it as not fine. I'm sure that will convince lots of centrist democrats. The very idea of having a Donald-vs-Bill sexual-assault contest without even mentioning Tara Reade says all we need to know about this person's judgment. To be fair, the first sentence does that too.

Cool. Well you just wasted at least ten minutes of your life thinking about something that I posted disingenuously in order to demonstrate that whataboutism is about distraction rather than have me trying to stay on topic and directly address your points. In a meta way I suppose I did.

Clearly you didn't "waste" any time reading the link I provided. b^) We agree completely on the topic of "whataboutism".

I skimmed it and disagreed with it. Generally, if you can't win an argument based on logic, and then emotional appeals, then you can fall back on jurisdiction. You can attack the other person's credibility (you have no jurisdiction), proclaim that no resolution is possible, the world is too complex (we don't have jurisdiction), or as I now realize whataboutism means this is the right jurisdiction, but nothing you said matters because we're arguing the wrong topic. So yeah, whataboutism is the argument of last resort. Ergo, the one used by people who don't have a good argument.

This is literally not a whatabout since we are discussing the same actions here, forcing an airplane down and breaking international laws, norms and traditions.

Let us try to decide if some of the posters here are hypocrites or not.

That’s exactly what whataboutism is for. Accusing someone of being a hypocrite without addressing the actual point at all.

Edit: and with zero evidence that they might even be a hypocrite in the first place...

The point is about precedent.

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.

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

Disproving an argument is not a prerequisite for exposing hypocrisy, these acts can be done separately. And if the other party doesn't address the accusation of hypocrisy there might not be a need for disproving the argument to them, as their position might be politically motivated and not aimed at resolving the issue in principle.

If Charles Manson had said murder was wrong, we might have doubted his sincerity but hardly the point of the actual statement.

in this case, it is more akin to Charles Manson condemning Shoko Asahara for cult activity, and dismissing his "then why are you doing it?" as "whataboutism".

It is important to know whether the condemning party applies the same standards to their own activities, because there's no possibility of resolving the issue at hand without both parties applying the same principles and standards on everyone, including themselves. And dismissing the significance of this knowledge as "whataboutism" is short-sighted, because it's the tool of establishing standards of morality, and it gives a hint to third parties about the nature of their neighbours involved in the dispute.

"There is a precedent and the precedent was followed" is the other sides argument.

That is what the term means in popular culture, but what are the implications?

In practice it means that the side who accuses first (currently mostly SJWs) gets to speak and attack others while using "whataboutism" as a shield to shut up their opponents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com