ADVERTISEMENT

The Fallacy of "Whataboutism"

Nov 28, 2010
87,377
42,088
113
Maryland
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29...a-critic-silent-about-so-many-hideous-abuses/

[excerpt - check the link for the first 2/3, which includes the list he mentions.]

The point is the incredibly deceitful, miserably common, intellectually bankrupt tactic that The Daily Beast just aired: smearing people not for what they write, but for what they don’t write. It’s something I encounter literally every day, almost always as an expression of the classic “whataboutism” fallacy — ironically depicted in the West as having been pioneered by Soviet Communists — designed to distract attention from one’s own crimes (OK, fine, we just bombed a hospital in Afghanistan, are constantly droning innocent people to death, and are arming the Saudi slaughter of Yemeni citizens, but look way over there: Why don’t you talk more about Russia????).

And that’s to say nothing of the ignoble history of this tactic in the U.S. — dating back to the height of McCarthyism — of declaring people suspect or morally unhealthy due to a failure to condemn Russia with sufficient vigor and frequency. For decades in the U.S., one could be accused of being a “Kremlin sympathizer” without ever having uttered a syllable of support for Russia, and that’s still just as true today, if not more so. That’s accomplished by a constant measuring of how much one devotes oneself to the supreme loyalty test of publicly denouncing the Ruskies.

This tawdry, self-serving, self-exonerating tactic rests on multiple levels of deceit. “Hypocrisy” always meant “contradicting with words or actions one’s claimed principles and beliefs” (e.g., lecturing the world on freedom and human rights while arming and funding the world’s worst tyrannies). It is now being re-defined to mean: “one who denounces some terrible acts but not all.” If that’s the new standard, it should be applied to everyone, beginning with those who most vocally propound it. As a result, from now on, I’ll be asking the endless number of people who invoke this standard to show me their record of denunciation and activism with regard to the above list of abuses.
 
So, I take that you will now refrain from saying "whataboutBush?" when we're discussing something Obama has done?
 
So, I take that you will now refrain from saying "whataboutBush?" when we're discussing something Obama has done?
If you were paying attention, you'd know better than to direct that complaint at me.

While it is sometimes reasonable to point to Bush (or someone else) when an attack poster is oblivious to his own hypocrisy, I never do it to deflect from an attack that has merit OR - and this is the point of the thread, since you obviously missed it - to impugn the character or the reputation of someone instead of addressing their facts or arguments..
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT