Whataboutery

[EricK]

"Whataboutery" refers to the situation where, for example, someone posts a thread about some country, person, group, political party etc, pointing out something bad they are doing, and someone else replies along the lines of "but what about Y, they are just as bad, if not worse than X."

When is this sort of argument OK to use? It seems to me, from having observed many threads here and at FRDB/IIDB, that sometimes people will immediately bat it down with a statement like "This thread is about X. If you want to talk about Y start your own thread", but at other times, such an argument is given a free pass, or even seen as a total rebuttal of the original claim.

 

[dystopian]

When is this sort of argument OK to use?

Generally, I only find it tolerable not when someone is pointing out negative traits of x, but are trying to oversell x as positive. "[Country/person/religion] is really awesome, look at all this stuff they/we do that's great, we're the best." "What about all this horrible shit that [country/person/religion] does?"; in that case it's still about the same subject, but you're also what abouting.

 

[dismal]

It's fine when it is being used to test and identify the principles someone is operating under (if any).

It's not so fine when it's rooted in hack apologism. For example, defending Obama for doing something (e.g., droning people) by pointing out something Bush did that you probably disagreed with when Bush did it.

 

[Terrell]

I have to somewhat agree with dismal. I do think it's fair to point out inconsistency in other's arguments. Sometimes; however, it's little more than an attempt to change the subject away from the person, group, whatever being called out for doing wrong. I think it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Just because Suzi is throwing rocks at windows, doesn't absolve Terri for doing the same, both are wrong.

I think a simplified example of derail would look like something like this:

Poster 1: Republicans are doing X, and it's wrong
Poster 2: Well Democrats do it too.
Poster 1: Yeah, and it's wrong despite who does it.

At that point if poster 2 continues to harp on Democrats doing it too, I think they're trying to change the scrutiny away from their guy. Substitute any other two groups for Democrats & Republicans and IMO, it's the same thing.

 

[EricK]

I have to somewhat agree with dismal. I do think it's fair to point out inconsistency in other's arguments. Sometimes; however, it's little more than an attempt to change the subject away from the person, group, whatever being called out for doing wrong. I think it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Just because Suzi is throwing rocks at windows, doesn't absolve Terri for doing the same, both are wrong.

I think a simplified example of derail would look like something like this:

Poster 1: Republicans are doing X, and it's wrong
Poster 2: Well Democrats do it too.
Poster 1: Yeah, and it's wrong despite who does it.

At that point if poster 2 continues to harp on Democrats doing it too, I think they're trying to change the scrutiny away from their guy. Substitute any other two groups for Democrats & Republicans and IMO, it's the same thing.

But the main issue I would have with Poster 1 in this example, is why he is mentioning the Republicans specifically, when it is everyone who is doing it. Even though it is not a strict logical conclusion, there is a general implication that a sentence like "Group X are like this" is really short for "Group X are like this and all or most other groups aren't". Trying to take advantage of this when that implication is not true strikes me as somewhat underhand.

 

[NobleSavage]

Yeah, well YouTube comments are much worse.

 

[Celldweller]

I have to somewhat agree with dismal. I do think it's fair to point out inconsistency in other's arguments. Sometimes; however, it's little more than an attempt to change the subject away from the person, group, whatever being called out for doing wrong. I think it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Just because Suzi is throwing rocks at windows, doesn't absolve Terri for doing the same, both are wrong.

I think a simplified example of derail would look like something like this:

Poster 1: Republicans are doing X, and it's wrong
Poster 2: Well Democrats do it too.
Poster 1: Yeah, and it's wrong despite who does it.

At that point if poster 2 continues to harp on Democrats doing it too, I think they're trying to change the scrutiny away from their guy. Substitute any other two groups for Democrats & Republicans and IMO, it's the same thing.

But the main issue I would have with Poster 1 in this example, is why he is mentioning the Republicans specifically, when it is everyone who is doing it. Even though it is not a strict logical conclusion, there is a general implication that a sentence like "Group X are like this" is really short for "Group X are like this and all or most other groups aren't". Trying to take advantage of this when that implication is not true strikes me as somewhat underhand.

It is. And you'd be have the quick upperhand in pointing out Poster 1's weak opening statement.

 

[untermensche]

It's a valid argument if one is trying to say that the actions of some party are unusual.

"Oh the humanity, Hamas is firing rockets into Israel! These people are terrorists."

It's not invalid to point out that this rocket firing is occurring in the midst of a 50 year occupation and oppression of millions where thousands of Palestinians have been killed.

The validity of any argument depends on context.

 

[Terrell]

I have to somewhat agree with dismal. I do think it's fair to point out inconsistency in other's arguments. Sometimes; however, it's little more than an attempt to change the subject away from the person, group, whatever being called out for doing wrong. I think it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Just because Suzi is throwing rocks at windows, doesn't absolve Terri for doing the same, both are wrong.

I think a simplified example of derail would look like something like this:

Poster 1: Republicans are doing X, and it's wrong
Poster 2: Well Democrats do it too.
Poster 1: Yeah, and it's wrong despite who does it.

At that point if poster 2 continues to harp on Democrats doing it too, I think they're trying to change the scrutiny away from their guy. Substitute any other two groups for Democrats & Republicans and IMO, it's the same thing.

But the main issue I would have with Poster 1 in this example, is why he is mentioning the Republicans specifically, when it is everyone who is doing it. Even though it is not a strict logical conclusion, there is a general implication that a sentence like "Group X are like this" is really short for "Group X are like this and all or most other groups aren't". Trying to take advantage of this when that implication is not true strikes me as somewhat underhand.

It's not unusual, especially in political threads, that the topic at hand is some specific action(s) on the part of a specific person or group. If part of the discussion at hand is the rightness or wrongness of said action, said rightness or wrongness doesn't change on the basis of what group is doing said action(s). When "they do it too" is an argument w/r/t the rightness or wrongness of said action, then it's really a derail, but it's fair to question whether or not one would hold one's favored group(s), to the same standard that one is holding one's disliked group(s).

Now I do understand the need to divide some groups into smaller subgroups, as some members of the overall group may not be guilty of said behavior.

 

[EricK]

But the main issue I would have with Poster 1 in this example, is why he is mentioning the Republicans specifically, when it is everyone who is doing it. Even though it is not a strict logical conclusion, there is a general implication that a sentence like "Group X are like this" is really short for "Group X are like this and all or most other groups aren't". Trying to take advantage of this when that implication is not true strikes me as somewhat underhand.

It's not unusual, especially in political threads, that the topic at hand is some specific action(s) on the part of a specific person or group. If part of the discussion at hand is the rightness or wrongness of said action, said rightness or wrongness doesn't change on the basis of what group is doing said action(s). When "they do it too" is an argument w/r/t the rightness or wrongness of said action, then it's really a derail, but it's fair to question whether or not one would hold one's favored group(s), to the same standard that one is holding one's disliked group(s).

Now I do understand the need to divide some groups into smaller subgroups, as some members of the overall group may not be guilty of said behavior.

Well to reverse somewhat my original question: When is it OK to highlight the action of a particular person or group, when said action is commonplace among people or groups, and not mention the other groups, or the fact that it is a commonplace action?

 

[Terrell]

It's not unusual, especially in political threads, that the topic at hand is some specific action(s) on the part of a specific person or group. If part of the discussion at hand is the rightness or wrongness of said action, said rightness or wrongness doesn't change on the basis of what group is doing said action(s). When "they do it too" is an argument w/r/t the rightness or wrongness of said action, then it's really a derail, but it's fair to question whether or not one would hold one's favored group(s), to the same standard that one is holding one's disliked group(s).

Now I do understand the need to divide some groups into smaller subgroups, as some members of the overall group may not be guilty of said behavior.

Well to reverse somewhat my original question: When is it OK to highlight the action of a particular person or group, when said action is commonplace among people or groups, and not mention the other groups, or the fact that it is a commonplace action?

In the context of a particular action, and whether or not it's wrong, it's fair in my opinion to start with a specific example of a particular action. The main thing I'm trying to say, in my rather simplified (as stated) example, is that whether something is right or wrong, doesn't change on the basis of who's doing it.

 

[Metaphor]

Although "what about" arguments are often not used in this way, I think perspective is valuable. You can acknowledge the perspective but that doesn't mean that whatever it is you're complaining about you've got no right to complain about.

E.g. I think it's a matter of justice that the State not discriminate by gender, so same-sex marriages ought to be allowed. But I do have a sense of perspective about gay issues: Australia does not yet have same-sex marriage but it does not execute homosexuals, when execution is a reality in many parts of the world. But I'm hardly going to be persuaded to be silent on same-sex marriage because the Australian government isn't executing me.

Many people in the first world recognise that they need to keep perspective which is why 'first world problems' is such a popular internet meme.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When is this sort of argument OK to use?

WHEN IT'S THE ONLY ARGUMENT YOU'VE GOT!

 

[Canard DuJour]

Tu quoque   or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.