Whataboutism: A Spurious Charge Exposed
The Tiresome Rebuke of a Supposed Fallacy Is In Fact Very Often a Deflection of a More Odious Sort.
Public discourse is only devolving more and more. Ever greater numbers of the populace seem utterly incapable of expressing an actual intelligible thought uniquely their own, with so much chatter on social media consisting of many of the same exact phrases, the very same refrains heard millions of times over, the same stupid, stale memes or gif images that are seen a countless number of times each and every day. One phenomenon characterizing this degradation in thought and discourse is the tendency whereby midwits like to trot out certain phrases and buzzwords that they think win the argument, but in fact are just reiterating the most hollow dogma. Very often these buzzwords and slogans do not bear close scrutiny, even as they are repeatedly regurgitated over and over again, in a desperate attempt to show the world what deep, original thinkers they are, when in fact most are anything but. Reciting tired dogma associated with the descriptivist plague that is destroying our language and has made a mockery of what it means to be an English teacher or a grammarian is one tell-tale sign that the more discerning and enlightened among us is contending with a midwit. The oft repeated maxim that “correlation does not imply causation” is another; in fact correlation can imply causation, it just does not necessarily do so. For indeed correlation often signals possible or probable causation, as strong correlation is often a tell-tale sign that a causal relationship likely exists, as demonstrated by the Bradford Hill criteria which sets forth a set of criteria to examine whether correlation likely does not indicate causation) The idea that it is impossible to “prove a negative,” which is very often but not always true. The subject of this essay, the supposed fallacy of “whataboutism” is another such tell that one might be contending with an insufferable midwit or even an outright simpleton who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, or is much dumber than he realizes, or both.
The dismissal of an argument or objection as “whataboutism” is strewn all over the Internet, most particularly reddit but other corners of the web of similarly dubious repute. Many authorities on reason, logic, and philosophy now, quite regrettably, list “whataboutism” as a formal, recognized logical fallacy. And on the basis of that very appeal to authority, far too many are all too eager to dismiss any sort of objection to a given charge or accusation as either hypocritical, suffering from cognitive dissonance, or suffering from an incredible oversight on the spurious grounds that the objection or argument is simply nothing more than “whataboutism.” But is “whataboutism” really a fallacy at all?
One indicator impugning “whataboutism” as a legitimate fallacy is how recently the term gained widespread usage in the English language. Many online sources state the term was first used by Edward Lucas in 2007 in The Economist, to describe a Soviet and later Russian propaganda technique to respond to criticisms by the United States in particular with so-called “whataboutism.” Criticism of human rights abuses by the Soviet Union would be responded to with allegations concerning racism in the United States, the legacy of Jim Crow, and so on, as a way of deflecting attention from the criticism of Soviet and then later Russian domestic and foreign policy. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, these rhetorical and propaganda strategies were exhibited further, notably with the Russian incursion into Ukraine in 2014 and later the full-blown invasion into Ukraine and The Russian-Ukrainian War. Criticism and condemnation of these military actions by the United States in particular as well as its allies or rather motley collection of vassal states would be addressed by the rejoinder “what about American aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and so on.” As will be discussed later, such objections may not simply be a deflection or evasion, a classical fallacy that “whataboutism” has been conflated with, but are raised to highlight moral inconsistency, cognitive dissonance, and abject hypocrisy. Interestingly, as Ben Zimmer of the Wall Street Journal documents, the term actually originated from the Troubles in Ireland, in which NRA militants would respond to British condemnation of violence attributed to the NRA and Irish Unionists with accusations in turn concerning the British legacy of colonialism elsewhere in the world. Sean O'Conaill wrote into the The Irish Times chastising Irish republicans who resort to these tactics as “"the Whatabouts ... who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the 'enemy.’" The greater immorality cited never had anything to do with the question of Northern Ireland and the violence that was killing innocent people there—in Ireland—but cited British transgressions elsewhere in the world, with most or all such transgressions having occurred very much in the past and in places very far away from the British Isles. Quite interestingly, the noxious term “whataboutism” did not gain mainstream currency until it appeared in The New York Times in 2014, in relation to the Russian incursion of Ukraine and Russian state response to international criticism, principally from the United States. So while the term was first originated in Ireland fifty years ago, the term is nonetheless very young, with widespread usage practically non-existent before just ten years ago. Aside from the fact that the term sounds like slang, the fact it is so young and gained prominence during this nadir of Western thought is reason alone to regard the term with extreme prejudice. Indeed, the term sounds like so much gibberish uttered ad hoc by a less than articulate individual who, for whatever reason, cannot summon words like deflection, evasion, and irrelevance.
Philosophy professor Clint Roberts states “whataboutism can be a fallacy, but that when it is actually a fallacy,” it can actually be categorized as one of five other classical, long-standing fallacies, convincing this author at least that “whataboutism” is an unseemly slang term that is really just a poor stand-in for valid, classic fallacies. When it does not apply to a more precise, valid fallacy, it is just a nasty tool of sophistry that is designed or has the effect to deflect and obfuscate issues concerning fairness, hypocrisy, ulterior motives, and the like. Roberts identifies five classical, long-standing fallacies that better describe instances in which so-called whataboutism actually are fallacious in reason or argumentation: a tu quoque (you too fallacy) ad hominem, evasion, total irrelevance, and two wrongs don’t make a right (which is really just a variant or duplication of the tu quoque fallacy.
The example Roberts gives to illustrate total irrelevance would be someone caught smuggling millions of dollars of cocaine, and retorts “Well what about back in ‘97 when I lived in San Diego my neighbor Harold once assaulted me for parking too close to his driveway?” Rather than being dismissed as “whataboutism,” this bizarre non-sequitur is properly attacked for its utter lack of relevance to the issue at hand. As Professor Roberts explains, “this is an obvious fallacy of relevance, bordering on the irrational.” An assault by a neighbor has nothing whatsoever to do with the allegation of smuggling cocaine. It is totally and completely irrelevant, which explains why it is doubtful most readers have ever heard someone utter a comparable “argument.”
Ad hominem, as everyone should already know, is simply a personal attack. The example Professor Roberts cites is a politician who responds to charges of ethical violations by stating “According to Twitter your husband is an abusive alcoholic; what is YOUR response to THAT charge?” Personal attacks like this overlap greatly with total irrelevance, and could probably be subsumed in that category as well. Otherwise, it is just a wholly irrelevant personal attack.
Evasion is described as a tactic that seeks simply to deflect or evade, done with the intention to change the subject or draw attention away from the subject at hand. Closely related to total irrelevance, evasion is distinguished by the more specified goal of proffering a “red herring” so as to throw others “off a person’s trail.” Professor Roberts cites an example of a “Homeland Security official” who responds to question “about the numbers of potential terrorists crossing the border into the country undetected” and responds” not by addressing that issue, but with this rejoinder: “I think the more important question is for all of these business owners hiring illegals without vetting them. Have you asked them about that?” To the extent that hiring practices by the private sector should be scrutinized, this does not relate to nor does it “address the issue put to the official regarding his specific responsibilities.” Unlike the example of total irrelevance and ad hominem, deflecting with how private sector employers do not always vet alien employees is tangentially related to the issue of Homeland security, but it nonetheless deflects from the actual subject. Another example might be a husband criticizing his wife for “shoveling her food,” as she is using only a fork and using the plate instead of a knife to push food onto her fork, in response to which the wife admonishes him for something wholly unrelated to table manners. Both things may be failings in etiquette or polish, or unpleasant mannerisms that irritate the other, but the specific issue is that it is rude and unseemly for a person to shovel or push food while eating with only a fork and not a fork and a knife. Similarly, Ryan French, a pentacostal author contends that arguments against Christian opposition to so-called gay marriage on account of the numbers of purported Christians who divorce, commit adultery, or engage in other sins suffers from this supposed fallacy of “whataboutism,” when in fact it is evasion and deflection, insofar as the hypocrisy of Christians in the context of traditional marriage is irrelevant to the theological, moral, and practical arguments against so-called gay marriage, only being tangentially related given how hypocrites in the Christian faith intersect with the issue of marriage more broadly. On further reflection, it seems to this author that these subcategories ought to simply be subsumed into the general category of irrelevance, because instances fitting under what Roberts calls evasion are ultimately irrelevant, even if tangentially related.
The final and perhaps most common form of the so-called “whatabout” fallacy is simply the tu quoque (you too fallacy). Sometimes this is a legitimate fallacy, and seems closely intertwined if not synonymous with the “two wrongs do not make a write” fallacy Roberts identifies. But this supposed fallacy quite often raises legitimate points, highlighting inconsistency, cognitive dissonance, or even abject hypocrisy when someone objects that comparable things are treated or regarded quite differently. As mentioned earlier, one relevant example of the tu quoque fallacy would be the United States condemning Russia for the Invasion of Ukraine, with Russia or its defenders or sympathizers responding with something akin to “who are you Americans to say, given your history of military aggression in Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan.” Those who think it is a fallacy will claim that Russia’s response is just classic “whataboutism.” Of course, those who point out America’s own aggression can explain this objection shows America’s own hypocrisy, and in any case instances of American aggression (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan among many others) are not within America’s sphere of influence, do not border the United States, just as Russia, unlike America, does have legitimate territorial and historical claims on Ukraine, to mention nothing of how the population East of the Dnieper is majority Russian, with the Southeast quadrant consisting of a Russian supermajority tipping the balance of that half of Ukraine. Despite what those bearing Ukrainian flags in their twitter profiles or whose suffer from Putin derangement syndrome may argue, pointing out the hypocrisy of the United States is a perfectly acceptable, logical response, particularly when argued along with the many things that distinguish the Ukrainian matter from other acts of aggression. Revealing the hypocrisy—or at best moral inconsistency—of the United States reveals the Superpower’s motives do not concern aggression of one country against another, because if it did, it would turn that powerful lens of perception on herself. This in turn suggests other motives, including global-strategic interests in curbing or damaging Russia, Joseph Biden and his cronies profiting ungodly amounts of money by sending practically unlimited amounts of arms and money to the doomed state, among other ulterior motives.[1]
Advocates of the tu quoque fallacy often liken it to a child being punished for a clear and naked transgression, with the only defense “what about my sister, she did such and such the other day.” That by itself is not a valid defense for whatever the child is being punished for. Unless of course such objection is part and parcel of clearly disparate standards, of favoritism. If a disfavored sibling gets punished for drinking at a high school kegger and the favorite does the same or even worse but receives a lesser punishment, or even no punishment at all, that is evidence of favoritism. It may not excuse the transgression in question, but it does raise questions of fairness, ulterior motives, and other legitimate concerns. People who argue that this is nonetheless a logical fallacy in the strict sense overlook the moral and practical implications of such problems. A parent who dismisses such objections, when legitimate, and fails to correct abject favoritism is likely to engender vicious sibling rivalries among many other pathologies typical of a dysfunctional family.
In this way, these considerations—very important considerations that concern moral inconsistency, cognitive dissonance, and even abject hypocrisy—illustrate what a crock the supposed “whataboutism” fallacy really is. This is demonstrated in a number of important matters in current events and the modern world. Most immediately, leftists are likely to cry out that objections concerning appallingly different treatment to January 6 protestors is nothing other than “whataboutism,” with some even stating it is “classic whataboutism,” a most absurd utterance given that the term is practically fifteen minutes old. Indeed, the dismissal of such concerns as simply “whataboutism” reveals the invocation of this “whataboutism” fallacy to be a deflection tactic of its own--a deflection tactic that no one should be persuaded by. Only by comparing the harsh treatment of January 6 protestors with the remarkable leniency shown rioters, looters, arsonists, and other criminals in association with the Geroge Floyd and Black Lives Matter riots are we able to discern the abject hypocrisy at play here, the obvious double standards whereby the January 6 protestors were treated harshly with stiff prison sentences, often under appalling conditions, on one hand while the same institutions of power all but gave St George protestors, rioters, looters, and arsonists a wink and a nod and a slap on the wrist, even though the riots of 2020 did exponentially greater damage totaling many tens of billions, with many losing their businesses and livelihoods, as a number of people were killed. Such “whataboutism” not only reveals double standards and abject hypocrisy, but reveals ulterior motives as to why January 6 protestors were dealt with so harshly, which in turn bolsters the argument they were political prisoners.
Since leftist swine are so often mesmerized by appeals to authority, it is of note that Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has stated as much about this so-called logical fallacy known as “whataboutism,” in relation to how this charge of “whataboutism” was used to deflect legitimate criticism of the nakedly disparate treatment of President Trump in regard to handling of classified materials, even as the same persons pointing a finger at him turned a blind eye to the Hilary Clinton email scandal. Dershowitz explains that the “way in which Berger and Mrs. Clinton were treated is highly relevant in determining whether Mr. Trump is being subjected to a double standard of justice.” In regards to the “two wrongs don’t make a right ‘fallacy’” discussed above, he concedes that while “a second wrong doesn’t justify or excuse the first, unequal treatment of two comparable wrong” raises “concerns about fairness and equality.” Most importantly, Dershowitz cautions that in order to demonstrate “equal application of the law,” one must show that a particular violation is “routinely prosecuted” and, in relation to matters such as Trump’s handling of classified materials and the Hilary Clinton email scandal, alleged violators are subject to a search warrant uniformly and fairly, not selectively. Extrapolating this to broader constitutional and moral principles, he reminds readers that “treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the laws.” For those unaware, the phrase “equal protection of the laws” concerns what is known as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Extrapolated as a broad principle, this suggests that disparate treatment of January 6 protestors in particular ought to have been determined to violate the Constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.[2]
While leftist rabble and various wokester goblins continue to blurt out “whataboutism” anytime their detractors attempt to demonstrate moral inconsistency, cognitive dissonance, and abject hypocrisy by elucidating the disparate treatment of things otherwise very similar in kind, some, at least, have cut through the noise and the flimsy appeals to authority propping up “whataboutism” as a legitimate logical fallacy, which is usually little else than a naked ploy to discredit or silence anyone who is accused in engaging in this supposed fallacy. In the “Citations Needed” podcast, Adam Johnson described whataboutism as a “A zombie phrase” that has “seeped into everyday liberal discourse” that is wielded as a crude, blunt instrument to silence or obfuscate “any appeal to moral consistency. . ..” He further contends that those who utter “whataboutism” as some sort of rhetorical or logical trump card do so in hopes that the mere utterance of that buzzword will do “all the thinking for us.” He describes the intended consequence thusly:
It doesn’t require any thought. It’s just, ‘oh, that’s whataboutism.’ Okay, end of conversation.
But even as mouthing the magic phrase “whataboutism” is all too often “the ultimate conversation killer,” it does not have to be. Understanding that it does not deserve to be a legitimate logical fallacy is the first step in fighting that battle. That a term only gained widespread currency in 2014 after it appeared in The New York Times strongly suggests that this is so. Instances where the term falls under the classic, long-standing fallacies excepted, uttering “whataboutism” as a supposed logical fallacy is nothing other than rhetorical sophistry designed to end conversations about consistency, hypocrisy, and cognitive dissonance. In those instances where there is a legitimate fallacy at issue, it is invariably better described by the more classical, time-tested fallacies such as total irrelevance, ad hominem, deflection and, at times, the tu quoque fallacy.
In Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky argues that there is no adequate response when one is made the object of ridicule. That may be a bit of understatement, but that maxim does remind us all that mockery and ridicule are powerful rhetorical tools, and the recent shrill cries of “whatabouitism” in leftist circles seem so very ripe for that very treatment. One consideration of interest is that leftists do their own sort of “whataboutism” all the time, particularly in relation to matters of so-called racial and social “justice.” Perhaps when a leftie argues racial justice talking points by suggesting that there is disparate treatment between blacks and whites for like crimes, a very dubious proposition, one could mock such objections to “whataboutism.” Other chastisement and ridicule for uttering this dumb word might go as follows:
It amuses me that you actually said the word ‘whataboutism, you drooling, feckless twit. The proper term is deflection and evasion (or or tu quoque), but I am not deflecting at all, I am comparing two things that are treated very differently. Tell me, is it abject hypocrisy, or just cognitive dissonance at play here, or will you finally admit to your ulterior motives? You do not care about law and order, you just hate Trump supporters and want to use the power of the state to oppress and intimidate for your own sordid political ends.
If what is alleged to be “whataboutism” does not invoke legitimate concerns of double standards and a basic absence of fairness, point out that what is commonly described as “whataboutism” is in fact correctly described as one of these classic, time-tested fallacies of evasion, deflection, tu quoque, and so on.” Mock and chastise those who utter this obnoxious phrase for their lack of eloquence, while also exposing it as the fraud that it is.
Of course, even some of the classic logical fallacies that have a greater track record are not infallible, as is seen for instance in the supposed slippery slope fallacy, which is discredited by, as just one example, the observable phenomenon of defining deviancy down and the closely related Durkheim Constant. Readers are reminded to use their own faculties of critical thinking to discern whether an argument is actually specious or irrelevant. Only small, petty-minds are so intimidated by jargon that may sound authoritative, but in fact short-circuit critical thinking in what is otherwise a naked ploy to end conversations and “win” the argument through sophistry. As has been demonstrated, the spurting out of this noxious buzzword wins no such argument when those against whom it is lodged see it as the deflection and obfuscation it is.
[1] France and Britian declaring war on Germany for invading Poland on the basis of very legitimate territorial claims on Danzig and the area surrounding Poznan also becomes dubious when one considers that the Soviet Union invaded not just Poland, but the Baltic States as well, and then Finland, with only the latter having the color of legitimate territorial claims. Dismissed by some as whataboutism, the disparity between the Allied response to Germany on one hand and the Soviet Union on the other hand reveals less of a concern of aggression and other such interests, and more of a concern with other things, as demonstrated by a cursory review of matters like Winston Churchill’s relations with certain Jewish benefactors, the machinations of the Balfour Declaration to bring the United States into World War I, to say nothing of Britain and the United States allying with Joseph Stalin, the United States providing lend lease, even though Uncle Joe who killed far more people before the disaffected painter even arrived on the stage of international stage. These and other considerations reveal that the allied cause was not nearly so much about stopping a tyrant, but stopping one tyrant adverse to Jewish and other interests, while colluding and allying with a far worse tyrant who was conducive to those interests.
[2] It seems equal protection claims by January 6 protestors were rejected by courts, but this simply impugns and discredits our legal system all the more. One rationale used is that there was no disparate treatment by similarly situated defendants, distinguishing the attack on the Federal building in Portland Oregon because it happened at night. United States v. Judd, 579 F. Supp. 3d 1, 7–8 (D.D.C. 2021). Those readers who do not hate this dystopic abomination of country with every last fibre of their being are reminded once again: Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country did to you: in this instance, pissing on our hands and telling us it’s the rain.