Whatabout "Whataboutism"

In the past few weeks, three people, all in discussions about politics with me, have raised the issue of whataboutism – twice that I and once that “people” have raised subjects that are irrelevant. Since one of my favorite topics is how people are taught to argue, I thought I’d take a shot at it, because often, though it can be a valid criticism, crying whataboutism has become a tool that people use so the other side cannot speak.

I want to start off by saying that I have heard people on both the right and left use this accusation, often depending on which party is in power. Of the three people I mentioned above, one is a convinced liberal since the 1960s, who I know since I was a teenager; one claims to be and I believe is a moderate, but who hates Trump and the third one I had a discussion with in a bagel store, but don’t even know his name. But based on our conversation I know he hates Trump and I’m 99% percent sure is a liberal (he self-described as pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-border enforcement, etc.).

But that is just the last week. I have heard the term thrown around, not especially in reference to me, but to make the point that they did not think the response to their question or statement was to the point, and had drifted into another area. Not surprisingly, in the past few years the accusations I have heard have almost all have been made by either liberals or Trump-haters when you respond to something they say about Trump. But back in the 1990s I have often heard Republicans use it when criticizing Clinton – they wanted you to answer only yes and no to questions as if you were being cross-examined, or if it was an open question, they did not want you to mention anyone else other than Clinton. I don’t remember people calling it whataboutism back in the Clinton years – but they might have. I can’t really remember. It doesn’t matter. The accusation has been around for – ev – a.

And it is often nonsense. Yes, you heard me – nonsense. Apologies to all who use it. Please note that I said “often.” Sometimes I think it is fair and I have used it too.

Let me start with the technical definition which I found in an online dictionary: “[T]the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue. Also called whataboutery:”

Now, as far as that goes, it is not a bad definition, and it can be true. For example, if you say to me – “Moriarity masterminded the theft of a royal jewel,” then for me to say, “Well, Holmes often breaks the law in his cases,” sounds like a logical fallacy. The habits or unlawfulness of anyone else has nothing to do with whether Moriarity masterminded a theft.

But, I have given you only two sentences. What if the discussion was broader? You were arguing that Moriarity has a criminal record and therefore you believe that he masterminded a well-known jewel theft. Some might call it whataboutism, but it would be perfectly legitimate in that context to say that Holmes has often broken the law, the implication being that it doesn’t mean he committed the robbery.

Here’s several circumstances when making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue is often legitimate respond to an accusation with a counteraccusation:

 1. To show that the other person is engaging in a logical fallacy or at least that what he says might be logical, but untrue:

A: “I saw you at the scene of the crime yesterday. So, you are guilty.”

B: “But, I saw you there too. It doesn’t mean anything.”

*

2. To show hypocrisy:

A. "Rodney was saying how he made honor roll. What a braggart.”

B.  “Weren’t you just telling me that you scored a 1500 on your SATs?” 

*

      3. To show outrage is feigned:

      A. "I was outraged when Lincoln had the audacity to say that the election was fixed."

    B: "You loved it when Buchanan said it 4 years ago. You were excited when Taylor said it 8 years ago. You know you just don’t like Lincoln."

    *

     4. To point out that something or someone lacks credibility:

A: "Everyone thinks Bodinski is cheating on his wife."

B: "Please, the rumor was for years that he was always drunk and it turns out he doesn’t drink at all. Then they said he was stealing from the company and it turned out it was Smythe. You can only cry wolf so many times."

_____________________

One of the reasons people disagree about the responses given is that whenever anyone says anything, there is context, and implications, and suggestions, that go along with it. If I say, for example. . . .

“I love (Biden/Trump) because I saw a picture of him with a big smile. . .

Then all of the following is legitimate -

“I agree.”

“Do you know how many times he has lost his temper in other situations.”

“Everybody smiles. So what?”

“He should have answered the question instead.”

“He almost never answers important or hard questions.”

“Why shouldn’t he smile. He fooled everyone and got to be president.”

“Sure, he can smile, but he is responsible for so many deaths.”

Etc.

Just because the responder doesn’t stick to the first person’s statement about the photograph doesn’t mean that he is raising a new issue because there is context involved, which may be absolutely unspoken – For example, if he says he thinks Biden or Trump is a nice guy. You know from other discussions he likes Dems or Reps and hates the other. You know he is a sucker for a smile. He frequently makes up any reason to think well of those people with whom his political positions agree.

You might disagree with me. But, then what if I said “I love Hitler because I saw a picture of him with a big smile.” Would you accept the idea that in responding you can only say that it is or isn’t a big smile? Because context matters. And raising Hitler or Trump or Biden or any politician or controversial subject, even with specificity, also raises a host of other matters that are related and we can respond to them. We are not robots.

So, I can guess what you (generic) are thinking, if you are even a casual declarer of whataboutism – that I’ve just given examples of when there is a good reason to bring up a counter-accusation or change the issue. My answer to that is – Exactly. There are many times it is appropriate to deviate from exactly the last point or question raised by someone, just as there are times it is not. And we (generic) will always disagree about which is which. It is the nature of argument.

But, what happens is that very often people listening are impressed more with the person who has made a good point and not impressed when they think he/she is too far off the mark. That again, is human nature. And it is part of discussion, debate, argument.

I will add, I have no special insight that led me to understand this – we all understand it and, whether the foes of whataboutism think so or not, they do the same thing in their lives and all the time. In fact, I will add, we all know how to do it from when we are infants.

That’s because, (often) all we are doing when we counter-accuse or raise a new issue, is making an analogy or argument similar to one put to us. Sometimes I find in a discussion that my best response is something that happened to me - a personal story, or a quotation from someone else, which I think is analogous. Now, here’s something I noticed about myself and analogies. I did pretty well on at least one standardized test on analogies, if I recall correctly. People who agree with me have often told me they like an analogy I made. Yet, somehow, virtually no one who disagrees with my overall point ever thinks my analogy is close enough factually to have value. Probably never. But, they usually do not point out why it isn’t close enough. They just dismiss it. It’s how people argue.

Why, because when we are arguing, we are not subject to the rules of the person who makes the first question. He might think it telling you don’t answer the question, and it might be so if it was a direct and fair question. I for one have, until this past weekend, never had anyone answer my question whether if they were with their spouse or loved one and someone broke in with a gun to kill them, they would rather have a gun so that they didn't least have a chance, or whether they would in their or their spouse’s last moments think- I feel so good about not owning a gun?*

*One friend recently did answer, after a few minutes of pressing that he hadn’t answered the question, which is a mind experiment. He acknowledged he’d rather have the gun in that case, but argued we can’t presume he’d be successful – and that’s true. All I was pointing out is that he’d have had a chance, and would want that chance.

Few people, in a debate, ever argue in a geometrical manner, and when they try, they usually fail, even famous philosophers. But people very much do want to control the discussion, because if you write the rules, so to speak, you usually win.

I have one friend who, years ago at least, used to ask a question and then demand you answer only the specific way he requested. He’d literally say – “you’re not allowed to say that” if he didn’t like your response. Even in a casual conversation if he said, “You coming over to bbq tomorrow?” he could not read between the lines if you answered “That should be really nice.” You had to say – for him to be satisfied only “Yes” or “No.” Once I recall him being fearful that I wouldn’t do something for him and I responded something like, “An asteroid would have to hit for me not to do it,” thinking it was reassuring. He took that as a "no," and became upset. Literally.

He was extreme with this style, and I think he would acknowledge now that OCD and stress had a lot to do with it, but people try to dominate arguments in many ways, by getting more time to talk, by priming others ahead of time, etc, or by rejecting the other persons’ response as unacceptable. In my time as an attorney I’ve noticed that a good deal of battle in court was had over attorneys trying to keep the other side from talking. And, judges being human and often biased, it can work.

Now, my friend just discussed above was a lawyer, and what he was trying to do is to cross-examine (which I had actually taught him how to do) rather than discuss. The point of cross-examination, which is necessary in law, is to allow the lawyer to dominate the conversation with the witness - because otherwise many adverse witnesses would make it impossible to get anywhere. The difference between that and a real discussion between friends or even conversation, is that in a lawsuit, there is a judge, both sides have lawyers, get to directly question their own witnesses, cross-examine their opponents witnesses and speak freely to the jury during arguments in summation. Someone might try to cross-examine during a discussion, but that is because they are trying to control the conversation. I'm not saying there is necessarily ill-will involved, because that person may legitimately think that only their path is the correct way, but what they are also doing is avoiding anyone bringing up things they do not want to consider.

But, it’s not just in law, it’s in all kinds of arguments. Personal, political, etc. I’ll give you one example. Lately it seems like a theme for some women is that men can’t have an opinion about abortion because they don't have babies. Some men agree, of course. I said to one woman who was adamant about it, that I hoped she didn’t have any opinions about rape, seeing as she couldn’t rape anyone or get prosecuted for it. She stared at me blankly, because there is no real response.

Discussions, debates, arguments, are usually free flowing, unlike say, a game or test, and though people do try and control them, it can be difficult because there is always at least another person involved.

Sometimes saying “that’s whataboutism” (or "that has nothing to do with it") is legitimate; it’s just overused. It just means it is not relevant - and calling it something "whataboutism," as if it is never allowed to bring up anything analogous or that is a developed argument starting anywhere but where the other arguer wants, is what is nonsense. Sometimes people’s responses have nothing to do with someone’s point or question. I remember making some point or another to a secretary many years ago, who was, let’s say a little rough around the edges, and who responded with “I hope your daughter dies of cancer.” Her answer seemed typical to me of people who were raised in her neighborhood. And, I have noticed that any discussion with my evalovin’ gf of almost 32 years (more than half my life now) usually involves me repeating - what does that have to do with anything we are discussing? It seems how messy she feels my desk is, is the answer to almost any question. Maybe one day she will persuade me that it really is the key to life.

It is true that there is no way to draw a black line or make an algorithm to determine when a response is close enough to be valid, or just a distraction. We all have our own judgments. And when we see others argue over it, we tend to agree more with those who we feel more generally agree with our viewpoint. Not always, but it is human nature. 

I have a very low success rate in debate or discussion in terms of persuading the other person. Everyone does. If the other person is emotionally attached to their own opinions, it is not impossible to change their mind, but close to it. People are often fixed in their views and would not change their minds regardless of evidence. But, not everyone. I am happy if once in a while I can persuade someone, and I know it does happen, usually over the course of time. And, I have had to change my mind over the course of years too, sometimes because of arguments I’ve heard against my own views. It actually hurts a bit to come to grips with the fact that you were wrong about something you felt deeply, and I know this from experience.

People naturally will want to convince each other that what they say is correct and some people they don’t like to be challenged or disagreed with at all. I have a few friends (I hate to say it - all women) who literally become angry if you disagree with them on the smallest thing - like the weather. But, it is hard to persuade anyone of something of which they have a strong or long held belief. I have persuaded people in conversations on occasion, and some have told me so, but really what happens is that, if they are logical and open, they are open to changing their minds. I feel I do better if I can argue in writing as I can develop my ideas and I am less likely to forget something - and sometimes I can go back and add it in if I do.  It’s often hard in a discussion where everyone wants to talk, especially if some people, get crotchety. That’s one reason I prefer one on one discussions without spectators. 

Or just me arguing alone with only commenting permitted, which is why I blog.