A simple guide to "whataboutism".

[guillaumeb]

Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another. It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

So, if a post appears discussing a positive action taken by people of faith, any response that brings up a completely different, negative action taken by other people of faith is whataboutism because it ignores the initial post in an attempt to derail and divert discussion of the actual subject.

One reason to engage in such whataboutism is to ignore the good action to promote a narrative.

I post this in the helpful spirit of another recent post here about another logical fallacy.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218295641

Edited to add:

And in a bit of probably unintended irony, nearly all of the responses here demonstrate whataboutism and the 11th Commandment.

[Major Nikon]

1. Meanwhile here's the part you ignored, which evidently didn't support your half-fast interpretation

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue. It is a specialized red herring version of the tu quoque fallacy, sometimes implementing the balance fallacy as well. An old favorite of the Soviet Union,[2] the strategy was used in the form of "And at your place, they hang black people",[3]. In recent years, whataboutism made a comeback in Vladimir Putin's Russia, and has also seen a rise in usage by Donald Trump and his support base.[4]

[guillaumeb]

2. Your addition in no way conflicts with what I wrote.

The fallacy is used with the intent to divert.

And it is used constantly nearly every time that a post appears with anything positive to say about religion.



I am happy to help you out.

[Major Nikon]

3. Horseshit

If someone responds with something negative about a positive post, that is neither defensive or countering criticism. The only way you are 'helping out' is by the promotion of subliteracy.

[guillaumeb]

4. And you fall back on your usual responses.

And demonstrate 2 things.

You really should stay with what you do best.

[Major Nikon]

6. If by 'usual' you mean contradicting horseshit, then I agree

Otherwise it's just another instance of you typing something meaningless and pretending you authored a substantive reply, or presented in another way...

[guillaumeb]

7. You are consistent.

Apparently you do not understand what I wrote. And how it applies.

[Major Nikon]

11. This is actually quite funny

You pull out one of your fully predictable canned reply of "you do not understand what I wrote" and claim I'm the one who is consistent.

Meanwhile you are still conveniently ignoring the relevant point of how your example doesn't fit the definition with diversion, which is both consistent and predictable.

[guillaumeb]

16. Perhaps you should reread the definition.

You fail to understand it, as is quite obvious from your responses.

I do not find your lack of understanding to be funny. It is an obstacle to any actual dialogue.

[Major Nikon]

24. Perhaps you should consider something other than a cliche for a reply

Meanwhile I'll simply repost your example, and your own definition which contradicts it for laughs just to show how you've managed to author yet another train wreck of a thread. Feel free to continue to ignore it and pretend you are offering actual dialogue while you continue to avoid actual dialogue.

So, if a post appears discussing a positive action taken by people of faith, any response that brings up a completely different, negative action taken by other people of faith is whataboutism because it ignores the initial post in an attempt to derail and divert discussion of the actual subject.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295865

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue.

[guillaumeb]

34. Againm you demonstrate a lack of understanding.

Do you realize that your definition does not contradict what I posted?

If not, that explains much of your confusion.

[Major Nikon]

35. You can't even manage to understand it's your definition, not mine

So there's that.

[guillaumeb]

39. Further confirmation that you have no interest in dialogue.

Or understanding of the definition.

Have a fun night posting gifs.

[Major Nikon]

46. Further confirmation you'd rather divert than respond to criticism

As if more were needed.

[marylandblue]

27. Well you do post a lot of turtles. Just sayin.

I actually like turtles, so it's okay with me.

[Major Nikon]

29. When someone authors a faceplant reply, it's good to have a visual

And who doesn't like turtles? Penguins are good too.

[marylandblue]

50. I'm confused, I thought turtle drops were a different kind of failure from penguin falls

Turtles have hard shells, so a turtle drop doesn't hurt. But that penguin looks like it got a painful bump on its beak.

[sprinkleeninow]

63. I'm fond of turtles myself. So I wish they would've made up another

name for mcCONnell other than using 'turtle'.

The lowly turtle has tons more intellect and inherently beneficent qualities than the despicable one.

Oops, now I need confession. 😇

[marylandblue]

9. Your intent is to divert, which is easily established because you say it is used here.

Meaning you know what intent others have. By the same methods you use to divine their intent, they divine yours.

[Major Nikon]

12. Yep a pesky little problem he has attributing intent to others...

while simultaneously acting butthurt when it goes the other direction.

[guillaumeb]

14. I understand that many do not like having their tactics discussed.

However, when the tactics are so obvious, it makes it very easy.

Like my observation about the 11th Commandment. That certainly was the occasion for a lot of angry comments from the same people who follow it so well.

[Major Nikon]

25. Sure, some author ad nauseum threads incessantly whining when their tactics are revealed

Not sayin' you, but you know, just sayin'.

[guillaumeb]

36. Agreed. You are not saying.

So we agree on that.

[Major Nikon]

41. If I did, would I be wrong?

[guillaumeb]

42. You are never wrong when you say nothing.

And you say it so well.

[Major Nikon]

44. You should learn to read between the lines

There's volumes of information you're missing out on.

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

45. You might try reading what is in the lines.

Or not, as you prefer.

[Major Nikon]

47. I hope this isn't your best effort

But it does appear so.

[marylandblue]

102. I like the raccoon.

[sprinkleeninow]

68. 😉

[marylandblue]

28. I think you don't like your tactics discussed either.

[Major Nikon]

30. This entire thread(and not the only one) is butthurt after his tactics were called out

So there's that.

[guillaumeb]

13. A nice try at diversion.

Ironic, actually.

[marylandblue]

18. No diversion, because if you think it is a diversion, I will tell you how to thwart it

Ignore this post.

[guillaumeb]

20. A failed try at diversion.

The diversion exists, the attempt exists, no matter if there is a response to the attempt or not.

And you could have ignored this thread, this post, but you felt the need to respond.

[marylandblue]

21. Yes I could have, but I felt it was important to illustrate a point

Which is that you can divert any thread simply by claiming there is a case of whataboutism. You can even divert your own threads that way.

[guillaumeb]

22. The actual point is to examine whataboutism.

And to note that intent is a part of it.

[marylandblue]

23. There you see, that's exactly what we are talking about

The only problem with including intent in the definition is that you can engage in the "defense by intent" strategy which holds that if you claim you didn't intend a fallacy, you couldn't have committed one. But that's a weak defense, because the other person can always claim you are lying about your intent. Then we could argue about intent which could be another diversion, except in threads where the argument is about whether a fallacy requires intent or not.

[guillaumeb]

32. I am not including "intent".

It is included in the fallacy. Many years ago, I learned debate at school. Intent is a large factor, but accepting your interesting definition would mean that there is no point in any discussion.

Intent can be inferred from actions, especially repetitive actions that follow a pattern.

[marylandblue]

56. You engage in whataboutism yourself and the only defense I've seen you make

Is that it is not your intent, therefore you didn't do it, but your opponent did. And then there is an argument about who is committing the fallacy. In either case, you get a low score. If you are doing it, then you lose points for committing a fallacy. If your opponent does it, you get a low score for letting them divert you from the actual topic.

[guillaumeb]

76. And now you proceed from whataboutism

to engaging in the tu quoque fallacy.

Well done, in an ironic sense.

[marylandblue]

93. Irony is all that's left

This forum is supposed to be about religion. But it's really just an extended lesson in whataboutism with a little Latin thrown in.

[guillaumeb]

116. For a few, this forum is reserved for attacking religion.

And attacking the motives and/or intellect of those defending religion.

[marylandblue]

118. That does not excuse your own behavior

[sprinkleeninow]

60. Below:

In reverse:
pattern--»repetitive actions--»inferred from actions=intent.

No point in any discussion of any sort.

[marylandblue]

88. Arguing intent is pointless in an internet discussion

Questioning someone's intent in any manner is ALWAYS pointless on the internet. Why? Because no action is so self-evidently pure that it cannot be attacked based on intent. Neither is there any action or set of actions so self-evidently evil that it can't be defended simply by saying "that was not my intent."

I actually never question anyone's intent on the Internet except here because Gil brings it up on every thread, so it seems unavoidable. But I'd prefer if we just ignored intent and focused on facts and interpretations.

[sprinkleeninow]

90. A voice of reason, you, but I will continue to have a fondness for Mssr. Guillaume.

[sprinkleeninow]

91. Just wanted to add:

Whaddabout the anti-theists having an idee that theists' intent may be to proselytize cloaked in discussion.

[marylandblue]

92. I disagree with questioning a theist's intent as well

Even if I did think they were proselytizing, I'd still try to take their arguments at face value or just ignore it.

[sprinkleeninow]

103. An extended lesson in whaddabout with a sprinkling of Franglais.

[Major Nikon]

26. Sure, kinda like when child rape apologists offer whataboutism in response to RCC criticism

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

33. Making another unsubstantiated accusation?

Or engaging in whataboutism?

Obviously the latter applies.

[sprinkleeninow]

51. Ain' it all de-vine? 😤

[marylandblue]

58. I wish we could stop arguing about fallacies

And argue about religion instead like a normal dysfunctional group.

[sprinkleeninow]

62. I yam normally dysfunctional.

And non-productive to boot! 😆

I kid you not. 🙃

[Beartracks]

5. Headline: "Pope raises man from dead." Response: "What about..."

"Call me when he lets women be priests."

"Yawn. The church is full of pedophiles. It should be abolished."

"Why didn't he raise a WOMAN from the dead?"



============

[guillaumeb]

8. Agreed.

When the choir cannot respond about a positive post, the fallback position is whataboutism.

[Major Nikon]

31. Interestingly enough your own source calls bullshit

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue.

[guillaumeb]

37. Again, you are demonstrating one thing.

That you misunderstood what you posted.

Apparently you feel that the 2 definitions are contradictory.

Sad.

[Major Nikon]

38. You mean my definition, or yours?

You still seem to be confused about that. Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

40. Sad.

But there is a remedy.

[Major Nikon]

48. Why would I want to remedy for your faceplants when so much entertainment value is involved?

[sprinkleeninow]

52. U bin steelin' mah 'just sayin'.

Just sayin'...

[sprinkleeninow]

57. Hay now. Quite difficult for me to utter, but those aminal

aminations are darling. I dint realize the Major has a lighthearted streak.

How-ever, I do not relish the intent of them, if you catch my drift.

Just sayin'.....

[guillaumeb]

75. Very light indeed.

Very light.

[sprinkleeninow]

87. There's still a minuscule of hope if a hairline crack will let in some o' dat light.

😘

[marylandblue]

10. If the Pope raised someone from the dead, most atheists and agnostics would demand evidence

And it would have to be very good evidence because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

So there would be an argument about whether the evidence is good enough and very little argument about what constitutes a logical fallacy.

[guillaumeb]

15. Which ignores what was said.

And what was said concerned the rampart whataboutism that accompanies nearly every post that presents positive news about religion.

[marylandblue]

17. No it's a straight forward response to an empirical question

Claims about miracles are determined by evidence. There isn't really any whataboutism possible in that case. Claims about whether religion has done something good or bad are different because the action itself is usually not in dispute. The dispute is about what caused it and what it means.

In other words, it's a bad example.

[guillaumeb]

19. The response illustrated the whataboutism that accompaniers evry post.

Including in this thread.

[Major Nikon]

71. It better demonstrates those who invent subliterate definitions and apply them arbitrarily

Just sayin'

Meanwhile your own source still says you forked it all up...

So, if a post appears discussing a positive action taken by people of faith, any response that brings up a completely different, negative action taken by other people of faith is whataboutism because it ignores the initial post in an attempt to derail and divert discussion of the actual subject.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295865

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue.

[guillaumeb]

77. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of the definition.

And continue to do so. Speaking of invention, and literacy, you apparently feel that the 2 definitions are somehow contradictory, and that explains why you are engaging in your..... whatever you call your responses.

[Major Nikon]

79. You can't even manage to understand who quoted the definition to begin with

...and you continue to do so by now claiming there's 2 definitions mentioned which is utterly bizarre since you're the one who came up with it.

Meanwhile you haven't even attempted to explain why your example contradicts your own definition, so please do keep pretending you're the only one who is offering substantive replies as it only makes your faceplant that much funnier.

So, if a post appears discussing a positive action taken by people of faith, any response that brings up a completely different, negative action taken by other people of faith is whataboutism because it ignores the initial post in an attempt to derail and divert discussion of the actual subject.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295865

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue.

[guillaumeb]

81. Amazing that you cannot follow your own posts.

And it was you that posted the other definition as an attempt to refute my original definition.

Hint: Look at the original post.
Now, read what you posted in what I can only assume is an attempt at rebuttal.
Now, explain to me how what you posted in any way contradicts or rebuts my post.


Good luck. You will need it.

[Major Nikon]

82. You stole my line!

To save yourself from future embarrassment, you might try actually reading the words from your own source rather than claiming someone else came up with it.

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218295865

[guillaumeb]

83. Good luck.

You are still as confused.

[Major Nikon]

84. Let's recap

I'm the one who is confused, yet you claimed your definition was actually mine and further claimed there was a 2nd definition which came from dog knows where.

Meanwhile you're still confused as to how your blatant contradiction with your own source isn't a contradiction. But yeah, it's your usual tactic when someone calls bullshit. You claim they just don't "understand", as if gibberish needs clarification. When you pull this stunt for the thousandth time, at some point it breaches the threshold of banality.

So, if a post appears discussing a positive action taken by people of faith, any response that brings up a completely different, negative action taken by other people of faith is whataboutism because it ignores the initial post in an attempt to derail and divert discussion of the actual subject.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295865

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue.

[guillaumeb]

115. You do have a gif(t).

But that gif(t) obviously stops before textual analysis.

[Major Nikon]

117. Since you've chosen condescension rather than substance, I'll simply remind you of your failure

So, if a post appears discussing a positive action taken by people of faith, any response that brings up a completely different, negative action taken by other people of faith is whataboutism because it ignores the initial post in an attempt to derail and divert discussion of the actual subject.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295865

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue.

[sprinkleeninow]

55. The pope? 🤔

[marylandblue]

59. Can the Ecumenical Patriarch do it too?

Because it would be really neat if they could do it together in a joint ceremony. It might end the schism.

[sprinkleeninow]

61. No. No co-officiating at a raising of the reposed.

It's all Orthodox, all day, or nothing.

Hi you! 😍

Why you want schism ended?

Gone way too far by now and concessions never happening.

Hi you! 😘

[marylandblue]

64. I like when people get along

If they did it together, they can say "we are both right!"

[sprinkleeninow]

65. You know you know church ecclesiology.

Me thinks the schism is altogether too wide, too deep.

But what do I know.

Now you are cross with me? 🙄

[marylandblue]

66. Not cross with you

It's fine as long as you don't kill each other, and I know there are no plans for that.

[sprinkleeninow]

67. It's been 'hear/tell' that Orthodox have been labeled as the schismatics, and

hence, 'heretical'.

Ecumenism is difficult.

[Major Nikon]

43. Is it unintended irony that this thread violates the 18th Commandment?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218284536

[sprinkleeninow]

54. Ground Control to Major...

Does the eighteenth commandment include thou shalt not covet the phrase 'just sayin'?

[Major Nikon]

70. No, but you can certainly create your own for that

Just sayin'

[sprinkleeninow]

85. 😁

[edhopper]

49. You really don't understand whataboutism

you see, when you praise the people of Russia for turning to the Orthodox Church, and others (me among them) point out that the ROC is systematically homophobic, misogynistic and antisemitic. We are countering the notion that it is a good thing and perhaps will lead to bad consequences.
This is a discussion about he merits of the ROC.
Now if you were to say this or that Atheist organization is also bad...
THAT would be whataboutism.

[sprinkleeninow]

53. So now all Orthodox jurisdictions of varied ethnicity stink?

[edhopper]

72. Not sure what you mean?

The Russian Orthodox Church has a long history of Anti-Antisemitism, misogamy and homophobia.
Who said anything about all Orthodox Churches?

[sprinkleeninow]

89. When the Orthodox Faith is disparaged, it sounds

like the essence of it (Orthodox Christianity) in particular is being dumped on.

The Faith of our ancestors is what people should actually embrace and not the clergy supplying the mysteries [sacraments to the Westerners].

So people should just thumb their noses at the whole thing and forsake their salvation?

[marylandblue]

94. You should hold your clergy to account.

[sprinkleeninow]

100. If me and mine were communicating in a jurisdiction that some on here mb referring to,

and we're not, it would be a consideration to switch while expressing our disapproval in power grabs that disrupt the body, if you will.

[edhopper]

95. Your talking to an atheist

so yeah, I am all for letting go of the 'faith of ancestors" and I don't accept divine salvation is a real thing.

I also think if you are part of a Church that is full of bigotry, you are part of the problem.

[sprinkleeninow]

96. I realize you are, I know you don't, that's your conclusion.

[edhopper]

98. BTW

I meant "you" genericly, not you specifically.

[sprinkleeninow]

101. Whew! I am relieved! No really. This religion thingy is a sticky wicket.

Contention from all quarters.

If I were to have an (church) issue that disturbed my spirit greatly, I most likely would let it be known.

The elect will be held to give a 'higher' account, as "it is written".

[sprinkleeninow]

97. Also, P.S., stay as you are.

[edhopper]

99. Thanks

[Voltaire2]

69. This has been explained repeatedly.

Instead the op has determined that “whataboutism” means “disagreeing with the op’s position”.

[Major Nikon]

74. Which is just another instance of inventing nonsense to counter those who disagree

Not unlike the 11th commandment argy-bargy. When your logical arguments have reached their limits, you simply pull nonsense straight out of your ass and pretend everyone else just doesn't understand. Meanwhile the imaginary fan club cheers.

[sprinkleeninow]

86. Not 'imaginary'. Last time I sunned myself, I turned a lovely nut brown.

[sprinkleeninow]

104. And here's me the prez by proxy. 📣👏 👍🤙✔⭐🆗 🇻 🇬❗

[MineralMan]

73. But, Tu Quoque....

[guillaumeb]

78. Exactly.

[Major Nikon]

80. Agreed

[Voltaire2]

105. Again, you are demonstrating one thing.

That you misunderstood what you posted.
Sads.

[Major Nikon]

106. I'm sure you have convinced yourself

[Voltaire2]

107. Simplistic, and untrue.

But expected.

[MineralMan]

108. If this continues, I'm resigning from the choir.

There, I've said it...

[Major Nikon]

109. No refunds on the annual dues

Just sayin'

[Voltaire2]

110. Further confirmation that you have no interest in dialogue.

Or understanding of the definition.

[Major Nikon]

113. More diversion

Which is yet another example of whataboutism from the choir.

[MineralMan]

111. Well, that might change my mind.

Maybe...

[Act_of_Reparation]

112. Yeah, but what about patriotism?

[Bretton Garcia]

114. Here's the better, Merriam Webster's Definition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning


It might be noted that for Christians, a legitimate kind of variation, is to accuse a speaker of "hypocrisy." If you are a Christian, note that Jesus used this kind of argument lots of times.