I’m fairly new to the term ”whataboutery”, used very occasionally at the Dope since 2012. A weak defence to arguments, the idea is to suggest something is unimportant because your opponent is a hypocrite.
Defences to classified documents being kept at home include the improbable idea they were for a future museum and the trolling suggestion the search was for Hilary Clinton’s emails. This latter subject is the perhaps the best example of whataboutery.
Though this seems to be all the political rage, this must be an old concept. Where does the word come from? When did it become so prominent in politics (or was it always)? Is it becoming much more used, as seems to be the case?
As the wiki article notes, “whataboutism” is a kind of “tu quoque” argument (coming from the Latin for “you too”). It’s a rhetorical device to discredit an opponent’s accusation of X by claiming that your opponent is also involved in X (without addressing the actual substance of whether X is true).
“Tu quoque” has been documented in the English language for at least 400 years, but my guess is that some variation of the phrase “No, you are!” goes back to the beginning of human evolution.
The thing is, whataboutism isn’t always tu quoque. It can instead be a red herring. The ultimate point is just to redirect the conversation to be about a different topic than the current one. Sure, accusing the other person of being a hypocrite is one way to do that, but not the only one.
The OP mentions the Trump documents. Sure, one example of whataboutism is “what about Hillary’s emails?” But another would be “what about trans children?”
Well, it’s a variant. But I’d argue that even using it to deflect is a kind of “tu quoque” – “you’re saying X is important, but you’re ignoring what’s really important . . .”
Your first example could be considered a legitimate question. It compares two (purportedly) similar acts by Trump and Clinton, in an attempt to ascertain whether a double standard is being applied.
‘Whataboutism’ is bringing up a different type of transgression by your opponent, with no interest in examining the issue at hand. As you note, it’s about derailing or redirecting the conversation.
Another tactic I’ve seen people use is to accuse a person who asks a legitimate question of whataboutism. Same goal, derailing the conversation.
In plain hits whataboutism beats whataboutery 810,000 to 119,000.
Frankly, I’ve never seen whataboutery in use, though obviously some people use it. Both terms are at least 20 years old, and whataboutism is used on the Dope regularly, even as a thread topic.
The poor baby has been kicked to death. Can’t we stick with the straightforward “hypocrisy” since that covers far more of what the right does?
Don’t know about the link. I’m using what I have personally seen. Anecdotal evidence is not statistical evidence and not very good. So, I must answer your nuh-huh with a decisive purr-haps.
One thing I’ve never understood about whataboutism is that it seems to implicate as wrong the thing one is defending by drawing a parallel to another thing that one is against. For example:
Person 1: Don’t you think that trump’s taking and refusing to return classified documents rises to the level of a crime?
Person 2: But-but-but what about Hillary’s emails?
Person 1: OK, if I acknowledge that Hillary’s actions sending emails on an unsecured server were wrong, do you acknowledge that trump’s actions keeping classified files that he shouldn’t have had are just as wrong, if not much worse?
Of course, in reality Person 2 would just argue that what Hillary did is somehow much worse than what trump did, but as a rhetorical argument it seems like it puts the user in a corner that’s difficult to argue out of.
Whataboutism is a term I’ve been very familiar with for a long time.
Generally, calling something an “ism” is more pejorative and gives it a negative connotation. The “-ery” suffix is more neutral. I suspect that’s why the former is more popular, because the concept is used most often as an accusation, and so it’s far more effective to use a more negatively-loaded word.
It isn’t an argument. Once Person 1 acknowledges “Hillary’s emails” all Person 2 is going to talk about is that in all it’s possible permutations. That’s the point.
While, technically, Whataboutism is a Tu Quoque in conversation it’s simply a way to change the subject.
That’s exactly why it’s a logical fallacy and people call it out when they recognize it.
It absolutely does, that’s why whataboutism is a fallacy and a terrible rhetorical tool. And that’s why it is useful to point that that it is occurring. The same way that you can defeat a straw man attempt in an argument simply by pointing out that it’s a straw man, and why it’s a straw man. (As simple as, “You are arguing against something that I never said, nobody has brought it up except you, and nobody is advocating for it, so it’s pointless to mention it.”)