The Whataboutism Wormhole: Navigating the Twists and Turns of Modern Discourse

What if your go-to comeback in a debate is actually sabotaging your point? Explore the world of whataboutism, where deflection reigns and logic takes a backseat. Discover how this rhetorical trick can derail discussions and why it’s time to call it out for what it is.

What if I told you that your favourite rhetorical weapon might actually be undermining your arguments? Welcome to the world of whataboutism, where deflection reigns supreme and logical fallacies lurk around every corner. But before you cry foul, let’s explore this linguistic labyrinth and see if we can untangle the web of whataboutery.

The Art of Deflection: Unpacking Whataboutism

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is the rhetorical equivalent of a smoke bomb. It’s a tactic used to deflect criticism or scrutiny by pointing out the flaws or misdeeds of others, often with the phrase “What about…?” It’s the argumentative version of “I know you are, but what am I?” — a childhood taunt that somehow made its way into adult discourse

Origins: From Cold War to Twitter Wars

While the concept of deflecting criticism by pointing out others’ faults is as old as argument itself, the term “whataboutism” has more recent origins. It emerged during the Cold War, specifically in relation to Soviet propaganda tactics. When faced with criticism about human rights abuses, Soviet officials would often respond with “What about…” followed by a reference to problems in Western countries, like racial discrimination in the United States.

Fast forward to the age of social media, and whataboutism has found its perfect breeding ground. In the rapid-fire world of tweets and memes, it’s far easier to shout “What about…” than to engage in nuanced debate. The term has exploded in popularity, especially in political discourse, where it’s become a go-to move for politicians and pundits alike.

The Anatomy of a Whataboutism

So, what exactly makes a whataboutism tick? Let’s break it down:

1. The Accusation: Someone points out a problem or criticises an action.
2. The Deflection: Instead of addressing the criticism directly, the responder brings up a similar issue involving the accuser or a third party.
3. The Implication: The responder suggests that the original criticism is hypocritical or invalid because of this other issue.
4. The Distraction: The conversation shifts away from the original topic, often without resolution.

For example:
Person A: “The government’s handling of the pandemic has been disastrous.”
Person B: “What about when the opposition was in power and they mishandled the flu outbreak?”

In this exchange, Person B hasn’t actually addressed the criticism of the current government’s actions. Instead, they’ve attempted to shift focus and imply hypocrisy.

The Fallacy Factor: When Whataboutism Goes Wrong

At its core, whataboutism is often considered a logical fallacy, specifically a type of tu quoque argument. Tu quoque, Latin for “you also,” is an attempt to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting their hypocrisy without directly addressing the argument at hand.

The Problem with Whataboutism

The main issue with whataboutism is that it derails productive discussion. Instead of addressing the original point, it creates a cycle of accusation and counter-accusation that can go on indefinitely. It’s the argumentative equivalent of a dog chasing its tail — lots of motion, but no real progress.

Furthermore, whataboutism often relies on false equivalence. Just because two situations share some similarities doesn’t mean they’re equally problematic or relevant to the discussion at hand. It’s like comparing apples to oranges and then using oranges to avoid talking about the quality of the apples.

The Hypocrisy Trap

One of the most insidious aspects of whataboutism is its appeal to our sense of fairness. After all, shouldn’t we hold everyone to the same standards? The problem is that this approach often ignores context, scale, and relevance. Just because someone has done something wrong in the past doesn’t invalidate their current criticism, especially if the issues are unrelated.

The Defense of Whataboutism: A Valid Rhetorical Tool?

Before we dismiss whataboutism entirely, it’s worth considering whether it has any legitimate uses. Some argue that it can be a valid way to point out double standards or provide necessary context.

Exposing Hypocrisy

In some cases, whataboutism can serve to highlight genuine hypocrisy. If someone is criticising others for behavior they themselves engage in, pointing this out can be relevant to the discussion. The key is whether the comparison is truly apt and whether it’s being used to further the conversation rather than shut it down.

Providing Context

Sometimes, what appears to be whataboutism might actually be an attempt to provide broader context. In complex geopolitical situations, for instance, understanding the actions of all parties involved can be crucial to forming a balanced view.

The Thin Line

The challenge lies in distinguishing between legitimate comparisons and deflective whataboutism. It’s a thin line, and one that’s often in the eye of the beholder. What one person sees as important context, another might view as a cynical attempt to change the subject.

Whataboutism in the Political Arena

Politics is where whataboutism truly shines — or casts its darkest shadow, depending on your perspective. It’s become such a common tactic that some political commentators have jokingly suggested adding a “Whatabout” button to TV remotes for political debates.

The Trump Effect

While whataboutism has been used across the political spectrum, it gained particular notoriety during the presidency of Donald Trump. His frequent use of the tactic, often in response to criticism, brought the term into the mainstream. Whether deflecting questions about Russian interference in the 2016 election or responding to criticism of his handling of racial issues, Trump often reached for the “What about…” playbook.

The Partisan Divide

Interestingly, accusations of whataboutism often fall along partisan lines. Each side accuses the other of engaging in whataboutism, while defending their own use of similar tactics as legitimate comparison. This meta-whataboutism — “What about your whataboutism?” — further muddies the waters of political discourse.

The Media’s Role: Spotlighting or Spreading?

As whataboutism has become more prevalent in political discourse, the media has played a dual role — both calling it out and, at times, perpetuating it.

Fact-Checking and Analysis

Many news outlets have taken to explicitly identifying instances of whataboutism in political speech, often accompanied by explanations of why it’s considered a fallacious argument. This has helped raise public awareness of the tactic.

The Both-Sides Trap

However, in an attempt to appear balanced, some media outlets fall into their own form of whataboutism. The “both sides” approach to reporting can sometimes equate unequal actions or statements in a way that mirrors whataboutist logic.

Navigating the Whataboutism Minefield

So, how can we engage in meaningful discourse in a world where whataboutism runs rampant? Here are some strategies:

1. Stay Focused: When faced with a whataboutist argument, try to steer the conversation back to the original point.
2. Acknowledge, Then Redirect: If the whataboutism raises a valid point, acknowledge it briefly, but then return to the main issue.
3. Ask for Relevance: Challenge the person using whataboutism to explain how their point is directly relevant to the original topic.
4. Avoid the Tu Quoque Trap: Don’t fall into the trap of accusing others of whataboutism without addressing their actual points.
5. Seek Common Ground: Try to find areas of agreement before addressing differences.

The Future of Whataboutism

As our political discourse continues to evolve (or devolve, depending on your view), what’s the future of whataboutism? Will it continue to dominate debates, or will we develop better ways of engaging with complex issues?

The Social Media Factor

Social media platforms, with their character limits and rapid-fire exchanges, seem tailor-made for whataboutist arguments. As these platforms continue to shape public discourse, we may see even more reliance on quick deflections and gotcha moments.

The Pushback

On the other hand, increased awareness of logical fallacies and critical thinking skills could lead to a backlash against whataboutism. As more people learn to identify and call out this tactic, it may lose some of its effectiveness.

A More Nuanced Approach

Ideally, we’ll move towards a more nuanced understanding of comparison and context. Instead of knee-jerk whataboutism or equally reflexive dismissals of any comparison as whataboutism, we might develop more sophisticated ways of exploring complex issues.

Conclusion: Beyond the What-Abouts

Whataboutism, like any rhetorical tool, is neither inherently good nor bad. It’s all in how we use it. While it can be a lazy way to deflect criticism, it can also spark important conversations about consistency and context. The key is to recognise when it’s being used as a smokescreen and when it’s genuinely adding value to the discussion.

As we navigate the choppy waters of modern discourse, let’s strive to move beyond simple whataboutery. Instead of asking “What about…?”, perhaps we should be asking “How can we address both of these issues?” or “What’s the underlying principle we’re really discussing here?”

In the end, the goal should be understanding, not one-upmanship. And that’s something we can all agree on — or can we? What about…? No, let’s not go there.

Bob Lynn / 05-Sep-2024