Deflection: Instead of directly addressing the criticism, whataboutism shifts the focus to a different issue.
Counter-Example: It introduces a new, often unrelated, "what about..." question that implies hypocrisy or suggests the original criticism isn't valid because the critic (or their group) isn't perfect either.
Delegitimization: The goal is to undermine the original assertion by creating doubt about its validity or the accuser's moral standing.
Steps to Question an Assertion**
Define the Assertion: Clearly understand what the assertion is stating.
Examine the Support: Look for the evidence or reasoning that backs up the assertion.
Check for Support: Determine if the support provided is adequate and relevant to the assertion.
Look for Logical Fallacies: Identify any errors in reasoning that undermine the assertion's logic.
Consider Counter-Evidence: Think of potential counterexamples that might disprove the assertion.
Provide a Reason: If you find the assertion false or unsupported, explain why by referencing evidence or logic.
Definitions: Perhaps the meaning of a key term/idea is unclear in the other party’s argument; it’s also possible that the other party did not define a term which you can then use to your advantage (e.g., what does it mean to say that one approach is “better” than another?)
Logic: The other party’s logical connections may not be as sound as they hoped. There may be generalizations or presumed causality; other times, there is a clear bias.
Grounds: You can respond by pointing out gaps in the evidence used (e.g., not enough evidence, missing critical pieces of evidence, misinterpretations of evidence)
So how is whataboutism different from questioning or refuting an assertion? They seem pretty much the same to me. Whataboutism seeks to undermine assertions by casting doubt on their validity, but isn’t that the goal of questioning and refuting as well? Whataboutism shifts focus from what the accuser considers a core claim but couldn’t this shift also be part of the questioning or refuting process, eg pointing out logical fallacies or counter-evidence?
Whataboutism is different in one way, though. Accusers seem to imply that the accused are devious, that they’re not really interested in the truth but on casting doubt on the truth, the better to rationalize some moral wrong. The accusation of whataboutism often stings, because it implies a moral deficiency in the accused. It’s less about logic and evidence than the accuser’s moral convictions.
—
* This is an AI summary, which uses one of my posts as its sole source. The link is to my post.
** This is an AI Summary; the link is to a primary source that made most of the same points.
*** This is straight from the source linked (Hamilton College, Debating Resources - How to Refute a Claim)