One other place where I've noticed myself doing a "whatabout" that I consider justified: political arguments where the topic at hand isn't actually the topic at hand, but is rather a fight over which of two terrible politicians to support. When that happens, I do try to at least acknowledge the truth of whatever I'm whatabouting.
"OMG how can you support candidate X when they did Y?"
"Well, Y is bad, but candidate A did B and B is worse than Y and my only choices are X and A, so here I am."
I actually prefer this kind of whataboutism to fighting over Y and B, because usually I find out that nobody supports either Y or B, we're just all choosing lesser evils. We might not agree on which is the lesser evil, but we can at least agree they're both evil!
I’m curious how the relationship between the arguer and the issue — to what extent does that impact the fallaciousness of the whataboutism?
To use some examples you reference, if one criticizes a Republican congressman’s defense of Trump’s documents handling and they in turn scream about Hunter Biden, that seems like unjustifiable whataboutism. In part, I suspect, because they are irrevocably attached to the issue. The deflection seems like unfair misdirection.
Whereas pressing “what about Sudan?” To a random American supporting the Palestinian cause (who let’s assume is otherwise untouched directly by either conflict), at face, does not seem like quite as fallacious a counterargument, as that person is opting into a moral issue with a degree of randomness (relative to them) that seems more valid to criticize with a whataboutist redirection.
So I’m curious how one’s relationship to the issue being discussed (and therefore their hypocrisy in being selective), plays a role, if any?
Yeah, this is interesting. If someone is moved by position X, do they need to justify why X and not Y? I think we can say the person might not be consistent in what they care about--and maybe, just maybe, that says something about them--but does that mean that if they care about X, they must also care about Y and Z too? I don't know. The question of randomness--why X and not Y?--seems it could be a simple matter of preference. What do you think?
I think I agree, because we do have some random preferences that do not actually say anything meaningful about us.
One counterargument could be that any time we do have preferences about content with a moral valence (eg which global conflict deserves attention), it inevitably says something meaningful about us in a way that a preference for vanilla over chocolate ice cream does not. And that does seem like a solid counter.
I wonder, then, if it’s more about the tacit claim that someone is making when they opt into caring for a morally-significant issue that they seek out, rather than one they find themselves in? They are implicitly saying “this is more important” once they are aware of multiple, similar concerns both of comparable moral weight. So to say “I’m sorry, but being up in arms about this issue seems more a matter of unjustified preference and selective attention that says more about your underlying preferences than the worthy nature of the issue itself” seems less problematically whataboutist?
In addition to pointing out double standards and hypocrisy, I would add that asking "what about" can also introduce potentially unseen implications of what someone is saying. Similar to double standards, but without the accusation. "If you think X is wrong, you're saying that comparable things Y and Z (which maybe you've never even thought about) are also wrong." This can also introduce the idea that someone perhaps hasn't considered the concept itself enough. #buzzwords
On a separate note, the problem with No Other Land is that it paints an inaccurate picture of the situation it portrays.I imagine there are many (accurate) stories they could have told that would have a similar emotional impact. I'm not sure why they didn't.
Yes, that's another case where whataboutism is useful; it's not always a dodge. The trick is to know why you are thinking this way, what motivates it. And then to be intellectually honest about it.
There is an interesting relationship between Whataboutism and the valid argument of Reductio ad Absurdum (RA). In RA, one shows that accepting the argument leads to unacceptable conclusions (in math a strightforward contradiction, in regular conversation, simply a conclusion the other party is unwilling to accept). Whataboutism is similar: if you are "condeming X, you should also accept condemning Y. If you do not, then your logic is flawed".
What makes Whataboutism a fallacy (assuming X and Y are equivalent, otherwise the problem is one of False Equivalence, not just Whataboutism) is the subtle logical move from "you should also accept condeming Y" to "you should have also actively condemned Y", which is not a logical necessity, since acceptance of condemnation does not neccesitate active condemnation
I love this! With your permission, I'd like to quote your response here to my monthly follow-up. You nicely articulate something that was more implicit in my essay. Thanks for engaging, Roy!
I attend documentary film festival almost every year since 2014 and „No other land” struck me as borderline incompetent picture. It was highest rated by the audience and well, I call many movies like that „not for my sensitivity”, because over the years I noticed I’m definitely less sensitive than avarage viewer. „No other land” failed to informed me why Palestinians even care about this land, what is their culture, why they raise these settlements there over and over again and overall I watched this in ?????? as people around me cried. I’ll be back in a sec with link on qualities of the film. Anyway this is form of whataboutism, because when I watch docs I often think of things I’d like to see explored by the doc, questions I have to the director like „you were there, what about…” or „why do you…” and then I can’t decide if I should reflect that in rating I give at the end of screening, or it’s just me.
So then I learnt that “No other land” got Oscar for best documentary and it blew my mind, because I really remembered it as operating on vibes only and aimed at leaving audience in tears without communicating anything about the place, culture and characters. I started googling if someone else shares my views about film and outrage at nomination. Well, yes. Turns out that the doc didn’t communicate more about that village and Palestinian culture, because it couldn’t - it’s all made up propaganda, recent (20 years back) claims to land previously unoccupied and Palestinians settlers have permanent homes in village nearby. https://open.substack.com/pub/lucytabrizi/p/no-other-land-oscar-winning-distortions?r=2bu2im&utm_medium=ios
About call to allow ourselves experiencing emotions: I happen to love docs as genre and to not be affected emotionally the same way audience usually is, which is neither my virtue or flaw. My position has major downside, namely I can’t equally enjoy many docs most loved by the festival audience and generally my taste is off synch. However upside to this is that I can analyse docs as message and watch 3 per day for 10 days. Sort of problem with documentaries is that it’s more than just a footage; director has big discretion what and how he/she chooses to show the subject. If it’s vibes only, then arises the question why.
I would argue this is a form of whataboutism too. Is the pain real? Is the displacement real? Is the violence real? It's our job to sit with that. Yes, you can contextualize to give the bigger picture, to help understand *why* this might be happening. But that contextualization does not change the fact that terrible things are being done to people; and it's ok to be moved by this.
Tbh while it wasn’t my initial impression, now I have doubts if the pain, the displacement and the violence are real-real or merely self-inflicted to advance cause through victimhood and if it’s the latter, how we should treat this. I’m writing this comment mid working on divorce case in which the father stages drastic scenes any time the mother tries to get sons back from contacts: for example he knows that mother will be there in 10 min, so he starts bathing children (which we know precisely from sms) and when she’s in the door he films how mother is incapable of taking care, because children don’t want to leave bath, children ask father if they can stay longer, mom picks sons against their will, children scream, father refuses to help and verbally guilttrip the mother. And this pattern repeats itself basically week after week, and all is filmed by father as evidence for divorce case. In my opinion the children’s discomfort is real, but focusing on that aspect in grip of empathy is just wrong (…judge does it anyway) when it’s very clearly orchestrated by the father at cost of children.
Yeah, I can see what you are saying. So the suffering is real, but perhaps orchestrated. What is your moral responsibility then? This is clearly complex, and anyone who says it is clear as day what the right thing to do is--hello Ta Nahesi Coates!--has not engaged enough with the problem. Thanks for engaging, Aneladgam!
One other place where I've noticed myself doing a "whatabout" that I consider justified: political arguments where the topic at hand isn't actually the topic at hand, but is rather a fight over which of two terrible politicians to support. When that happens, I do try to at least acknowledge the truth of whatever I'm whatabouting.
"OMG how can you support candidate X when they did Y?"
"Well, Y is bad, but candidate A did B and B is worse than Y and my only choices are X and A, so here I am."
I actually prefer this kind of whataboutism to fighting over Y and B, because usually I find out that nobody supports either Y or B, we're just all choosing lesser evils. We might not agree on which is the lesser evil, but we can at least agree they're both evil!
Thanks for this!
I’m curious how the relationship between the arguer and the issue — to what extent does that impact the fallaciousness of the whataboutism?
To use some examples you reference, if one criticizes a Republican congressman’s defense of Trump’s documents handling and they in turn scream about Hunter Biden, that seems like unjustifiable whataboutism. In part, I suspect, because they are irrevocably attached to the issue. The deflection seems like unfair misdirection.
Whereas pressing “what about Sudan?” To a random American supporting the Palestinian cause (who let’s assume is otherwise untouched directly by either conflict), at face, does not seem like quite as fallacious a counterargument, as that person is opting into a moral issue with a degree of randomness (relative to them) that seems more valid to criticize with a whataboutist redirection.
So I’m curious how one’s relationship to the issue being discussed (and therefore their hypocrisy in being selective), plays a role, if any?
Yeah, this is interesting. If someone is moved by position X, do they need to justify why X and not Y? I think we can say the person might not be consistent in what they care about--and maybe, just maybe, that says something about them--but does that mean that if they care about X, they must also care about Y and Z too? I don't know. The question of randomness--why X and not Y?--seems it could be a simple matter of preference. What do you think?
I think I agree, because we do have some random preferences that do not actually say anything meaningful about us.
One counterargument could be that any time we do have preferences about content with a moral valence (eg which global conflict deserves attention), it inevitably says something meaningful about us in a way that a preference for vanilla over chocolate ice cream does not. And that does seem like a solid counter.
I wonder, then, if it’s more about the tacit claim that someone is making when they opt into caring for a morally-significant issue that they seek out, rather than one they find themselves in? They are implicitly saying “this is more important” once they are aware of multiple, similar concerns both of comparable moral weight. So to say “I’m sorry, but being up in arms about this issue seems more a matter of unjustified preference and selective attention that says more about your underlying preferences than the worthy nature of the issue itself” seems less problematically whataboutist?
In addition to pointing out double standards and hypocrisy, I would add that asking "what about" can also introduce potentially unseen implications of what someone is saying. Similar to double standards, but without the accusation. "If you think X is wrong, you're saying that comparable things Y and Z (which maybe you've never even thought about) are also wrong." This can also introduce the idea that someone perhaps hasn't considered the concept itself enough. #buzzwords
On a separate note, the problem with No Other Land is that it paints an inaccurate picture of the situation it portrays.I imagine there are many (accurate) stories they could have told that would have a similar emotional impact. I'm not sure why they didn't.
https://honestreporting.com/media-spins-no-other-land-oscar-win-into-yet-another-fake-israeli-settlers-story/
Yes, that's another case where whataboutism is useful; it's not always a dodge. The trick is to know why you are thinking this way, what motivates it. And then to be intellectually honest about it.
There is an interesting relationship between Whataboutism and the valid argument of Reductio ad Absurdum (RA). In RA, one shows that accepting the argument leads to unacceptable conclusions (in math a strightforward contradiction, in regular conversation, simply a conclusion the other party is unwilling to accept). Whataboutism is similar: if you are "condeming X, you should also accept condemning Y. If you do not, then your logic is flawed".
What makes Whataboutism a fallacy (assuming X and Y are equivalent, otherwise the problem is one of False Equivalence, not just Whataboutism) is the subtle logical move from "you should also accept condeming Y" to "you should have also actively condemned Y", which is not a logical necessity, since acceptance of condemnation does not neccesitate active condemnation
I love this! With your permission, I'd like to quote your response here to my monthly follow-up. You nicely articulate something that was more implicit in my essay. Thanks for engaging, Roy!
I attend documentary film festival almost every year since 2014 and „No other land” struck me as borderline incompetent picture. It was highest rated by the audience and well, I call many movies like that „not for my sensitivity”, because over the years I noticed I’m definitely less sensitive than avarage viewer. „No other land” failed to informed me why Palestinians even care about this land, what is their culture, why they raise these settlements there over and over again and overall I watched this in ?????? as people around me cried. I’ll be back in a sec with link on qualities of the film. Anyway this is form of whataboutism, because when I watch docs I often think of things I’d like to see explored by the doc, questions I have to the director like „you were there, what about…” or „why do you…” and then I can’t decide if I should reflect that in rating I give at the end of screening, or it’s just me.
Generally idk when whataboutism is deflection and lack of engagement with what is given vs when it’s proper reflection and putting things in context
So then I learnt that “No other land” got Oscar for best documentary and it blew my mind, because I really remembered it as operating on vibes only and aimed at leaving audience in tears without communicating anything about the place, culture and characters. I started googling if someone else shares my views about film and outrage at nomination. Well, yes. Turns out that the doc didn’t communicate more about that village and Palestinian culture, because it couldn’t - it’s all made up propaganda, recent (20 years back) claims to land previously unoccupied and Palestinians settlers have permanent homes in village nearby. https://open.substack.com/pub/lucytabrizi/p/no-other-land-oscar-winning-distortions?r=2bu2im&utm_medium=ios
About call to allow ourselves experiencing emotions: I happen to love docs as genre and to not be affected emotionally the same way audience usually is, which is neither my virtue or flaw. My position has major downside, namely I can’t equally enjoy many docs most loved by the festival audience and generally my taste is off synch. However upside to this is that I can analyse docs as message and watch 3 per day for 10 days. Sort of problem with documentaries is that it’s more than just a footage; director has big discretion what and how he/she chooses to show the subject. If it’s vibes only, then arises the question why.
I would argue this is a form of whataboutism too. Is the pain real? Is the displacement real? Is the violence real? It's our job to sit with that. Yes, you can contextualize to give the bigger picture, to help understand *why* this might be happening. But that contextualization does not change the fact that terrible things are being done to people; and it's ok to be moved by this.
Tbh while it wasn’t my initial impression, now I have doubts if the pain, the displacement and the violence are real-real or merely self-inflicted to advance cause through victimhood and if it’s the latter, how we should treat this. I’m writing this comment mid working on divorce case in which the father stages drastic scenes any time the mother tries to get sons back from contacts: for example he knows that mother will be there in 10 min, so he starts bathing children (which we know precisely from sms) and when she’s in the door he films how mother is incapable of taking care, because children don’t want to leave bath, children ask father if they can stay longer, mom picks sons against their will, children scream, father refuses to help and verbally guilttrip the mother. And this pattern repeats itself basically week after week, and all is filmed by father as evidence for divorce case. In my opinion the children’s discomfort is real, but focusing on that aspect in grip of empathy is just wrong (…judge does it anyway) when it’s very clearly orchestrated by the father at cost of children.
Yeah, I can see what you are saying. So the suffering is real, but perhaps orchestrated. What is your moral responsibility then? This is clearly complex, and anyone who says it is clear as day what the right thing to do is--hello Ta Nahesi Coates!--has not engaged enough with the problem. Thanks for engaging, Aneladgam!