it’s unclear to me whether Whataboutism is just a word whose use has risen over the past decade, or if people are actually whatabout-ing more often than before. I’m not sure how you would measure that. Whataboutism accusations impute ill-intent: to deflect attention from an uncomfortable truth. In other words, the accusation of whataboutism is a form of mindreading. But how do we know it’s the truth of another’s intent, or the whole truth? And if deflection is one of the motives for reframing or changing a subject, is that always a bad thing? Obviously not. But how do we know when it’s bad and when it’s not?
In this post, I’m going to explore these question by looking at how ‘whataboutism’ was used in the following email exchanges from members of my debate club. Sections that include accusations of whataboutism and responses to that accusation are in bold.
Participants’ names have been replaced by their self-reported political identities: Independent – Ind; Progressive – Prog; Democrat - Dem; Libertarian – unabbreviated so as not to be mistaken as ‘liberal’. No Republicans were involved in these exchanges. I’ll indicate my own contributions as Me.
Ind: The progressives of SF would need to get their heads out of sand, where they have been firmly planted, and realize that actions have consequences. If you don't prosecute and jail shoplifters, shoplifting crime will flourish. If you let homeless live (and shit) on the streets, fewer tourists will come. Conferences will be held elsewhere.
Dem: You mentioned "progressives of San Francisco", inviting a round of whataboutism.
Ind: Whataboutism came from you, not me. You invited yourself. I guess you now consider normal to invoke it whenever something bad about Democrats is raised.
—
Dem to Libertarian: The problem with the "whataboutism" that you're engaging in, is that it minimizes and deflects from the serious issue at hand, namely that of violence towards LGBT people…If and when a left-winger commits an act of violence, we should debate and discuss that separately in its own right.
Libertarian to Dem: Regarding “whataboutism” – so if someone here brings up some act or threat of violence by a left-winger, you're planning to avoid the “whataboutism” of mentioning any violence or threats from people on the right in your responses? I haven’t observed that necessarily being your practice in the past, but if you're suggesting this as a new group standard or approach, I’m open to it.
—
Dem: I am not minimizing what Clinton did. But really there is just no comparison, even when compared against this, the least of the crimes committed by Donald Trump. "Whataboutism" just detracts from the task at hand: showing the country that it can hold its top leaders accountable…I am interested in speaking for this topic, but like you, I want to focus only on the merits of the case. I am not interested in wholesale dismissals as "witch hunts" or "whataboutism" that XYZ Democrats should have been prosecuted in such a manner. On the merits of the case, is Donald Trump guilty? From the perspective of non-lawyers.
—
Me: Racial animus is just another form of in-group bias; sometimes the out-group is a perceived race, sometimes it's just another tribe or religious group. All societies exhibit in-group bias; the targets differ but the intensity and ill-effects are often similar.
Prog to Ind: "You seem oddly cavalier about awful behavior as long as it is not motivated by racial animus e.g., (war as "population control", Arab slave trade)." You're doing whataboutism again.
Me I am responding to [Dem’s] points, which can be summarized as a kind of "European-American exceptionalism". In no way is this "whataboutism" (which appears to be more a talking-point label than anything resembling thoughtfulness). To point out that humanity as a whole sucks in many ways does not imply anything about ways of governing or policies to reduce inequality or suffering.
Prog: It’s whataboutism because you’re saying that because [Dem] focuses more on the atrocities of Europeans than the atrocities of Native Americans, his arguments are somehow incorrect… [However] one argument that could be made for Europeans being exceptionally violent is the fact that they developed more advanced weapons than anyone else. The Aztecs, Chinese, etc. put less effort into developing weapons than Europeans. This suggests that Europeans were more concerned with warfare than other groups.
Me: [The Dem has] been arguing that Europeans have been much worse than other peoples, including pre-contact Indians. I am addressing his comments, which I consider inaccurate. Are you saying that stating that Europeans are exceptional in their awfulness should simply be accepted, even if one disagrees?
Dem: When someone is hurt or killed by one side, the incident needs to be condemned outright and in its own right. "Whataboutism" cheapens the criticism and makes people question your true position.
Ind [to Prog]: Your responses don't make any sense. I'm not trolling you by pointing out that absolutely nothing you wrote is an answer to: "How do you quantify putting more effort into developing weapons?" which was your key assertion. If you can't do that, or even attempt to answer the question or support it in any way, your cries of 'whataboutism' mean nothing. You're avoiding your own point and your own conversation.
You don't answer questions, you don't stay on topic, and you're not educated in logical fallacies enough to use them. Example of course being this very dialog where I asked you a question and you responded with a twilight zone response 'whataboutism' which only proved you didn't understand or care about the point; YOUR point!
Again I'll point out that your main purpose is to vilify white people so any argument that contradicts that in any way is a straw man, whataboutism, or off topic despite the fact that several people have very skillfully countered your blind assertions with facts and reasoning.
Note that all the accusations of whataboutism in these exchanges came from Democrats or Progressives. That is a pattern I’ve seen for years, both in the debate club and on the internet. Does that mean accusations of whataboutism are mostly attempts to maintain partisan narratives and preempt challenges to those narratives? And that most accusations come from the left? Maybe, probably - although there’s no way to do a definitive counting.
Is whataboutism even a thing? That is, do people sometimes change the subject simply to divest attention from an uncomfortable truth, with no other motive but to make it go way . Sometimes. Case in point:
“Virginia Democrats have been told by the Jones campaign to deflect questions about the texting scandal* by highlighting Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and Virginia Republicans’ refusal to harshly criticize the president’s decision to pardon individuals convicted in the January 6 riot.” National Review
As for exploring the questions posed in the top paragraph, that’s next in the series. This post is long enough.
—
* The texting scandal, per New York Times: Jay Jones, a Virginia Democrat running for attorney general, posited a hypothetical scenario in which he had a gun, two bullets, and the choice to shoot Adolf Hitler, the former Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, and then-Virginia House Speaker, Todd Gilbert, a Republican. In such a scenario, Jones said he would shoot Mr. Gilbert twice. In a later text, he confirmed he was hoping that Gilbert’s children would die, adding “Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.” He elaborated in an even later message, “I mean do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they’re breeding little fascists? Yes.”