Whataboutism as a Rhetorical Tool

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is “whataboutism” or the “Fallacy of Relative Privation” ever a valid way to attack another’s argument or is it automatically fallacious?  

I know I’ve trotted it out from time to time.  I see it used by many from all sorts of points of view.  Should using “whataboutism” be marked an automatic “L” in any debate?

[sologdin]

fallacies are by definition improper inferences and are accordingly invalid, no?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

fallacies are by definition improper inferences and are accordingly invalid, no?

Absolutely.  The difficulty is that they are about logic and Rhetoric is about emotional/persuasive impact.  Fallacious arguments work to persuade all the time...

[lokisnow]

Climate change isn’t real!

whatabout your grandchildren starving to death?

seems like it could be useful. The more over the top and strongly worded, the more confident and intense, the more emotional and common sensical the better.

use it abuse it, punish the evil ones with it all the time as much as possible.

[sologdin]

scot--

no doubt it is a matter of rhetoric.  people be systematically diseducated by the man.  in accord therewith aristocrat aristotle pimps the pathos and ethos along with the logos--plenty of class-bound irrationalism at the ground floor of western rhetoric. we might say that aristotle's mendacity culminates in trump.

and incidentally is 'whataboutism' a reference to relative privation or to tu quoque? we may prefer the precision of technical over colloquial terms.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, sologdin said:

scot--

no doubt it is a matter of rhetoric.  people be systematically diseducated by the man.  in accord therewith aristocrat aristotle pimps the pathos and ethos along with the logos--plenty of class-bound irrationalism at the ground floor of western rhetoric. we might say that aristotle's mendacity culminates in trump.

and incidentally is 'whataboutism' a reference to relative privation or to tu quoque? we may prefer the precision of technical over colloquial terms.

I’ve always thought “whataboutism” is Relative Privation.  The implication of “whataboutism” is that you cannot address issue X without addressing issue Y that may have no logical linkages.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Disagree. A “whataboutism” as you call it may raise an entirely valid point. It need not invalidate the issue originally raised by the recipient of the “whatabout” accusation, but it certainly can be used to raise questions about his prioritisation of issues or the motives behind the position he is taking.

In some cases it might be a fallacy but in others it might well raise a worthy counterpoint.

For example if someone said I should go to significant discomfort to reduce my carbon footprint I feel it is quite legitimate to ask whatabout say China who is building a new factory every week or whatever the relevant statistic is.

The argument could then quite legitimately be that we should rather focus on forcing that totalitarian dictatorship of 1.5 billion people to cut its carbon output than focusing on my tiny comparative impact just because I am a closer and easier target.

[sologdin]

but to refocus the question on china in a debate about one's own footprint is irrational, no, if by such refocus one seeks to evade accountability?  i.e., classic red herring technique.

we do not in the US have jurisdiction to compel chinese compliance but we can compel our own.  it is an illogical question in that context, and doesn't do much for the ethos of the person insisting on china, which insistence is made at no risk to oneself, as well as an impossible fantasy, forcing an allegedly totalitarian dictatorship to do something.

[Heartofice]

A lot of the ‘what aboutisms’ i see tend to be a way of trying to expose peoples prejudices by highlighting how they mainly only focus on issues that fit their narrative. 

I think it can be a fair debating tactic if it is in fact the case that someone is not seeing the full context of their view in a wider picture.

However most cases I see are really just a way to divert a conversation away from addressing the topic and moving it onto one that is more comfortable for someone. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

24 minutes ago, sologdin said:

but to refocus the question on china in a debate about one's own footprint is irrational, no, if by such refocus one seeks to evade accountability?  i.e., classic red herring technique.

we do not in the US have jurisdiction to compel chinese compliance but we can compel our own.  it is an illogical question in that context, and doesn't do much for the ethos of the person insisting on china, which insistence is made at no risk to oneself, as well as an impossible fantasy, forcing an allegedly totalitarian dictatorship to do something.

Scott’s question is whether “whataboutisms” are always fallacies. And the answer is obviously no. Lets up the stakes in my China example in order to demonstrate that.

Let’s say the orginal argument was that the world will be irrevocably wrecked and humanity will die out if our carbon footprint is not brought below some arbitrary level. And that the argument is that we must therefore reduce our carbon footprint. However, let’s assume that in this example China have stated that they have no intention to do so for the next 100 years, and that even if everyone else did so out of moral conviction, the world will still be wrecked without China falling in line.

In that case it is entirely logical to say hey, whatabout China? And if the motive of the original argument  is really to save the planet, the logical focus should then rather be on say nuking China to save the species, instead of getting Bob in Nebraska to recycle his beer cans.

[Zorral]

What about Her Emails, hunh?  So there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

What about Her Emails, hunh?  So there.

Thank you for illustrating my point.  (In other words that’s exactly how some react in discussions rather than actually dealing with the arguments presented).

[Zorral]

Not legitimate, not true, entirely false and lies -- hey Works for Them!  They ain't givin' it up any time in the present calendar or the future, are They?

So, whatcha / whatabout YOU doin'  'bout it, hmmmmmm? 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Scott’s question is whether “whataboutisms” are always fallacies. And the answer is obviously no. Lets up the stakes in my China example in order to demonstrate that.

Let’s say the orginal argument was that the world will be irrevocably wrecked and humanity will die out if our carbon footprint is not brought below some arbitrary level. And that the argument is that we must therefore reduce our carbon footprint. However, let’s assume that in this example China have stated that they have no intention to do so for the next 100 years, and that even if everyone else did so out of moral conviction, the world will still be wrecked without China falling in line.

In that case it is entirely logical to say hey, whatabout China? And if the motive of the original argument  is really to save the planet, the logical focus should then rather be on say nuking China to save the species, instead of getting Bob in Nebraska to recycle his beer cans.

Except China is doing far more than lazy you on an institutional/national and individual level.  Saying what about China in regards to climate change just demonstrates your ignorance of China both today and the path they’re on. As well as ignorance of the non existent efforts of yourself individually, or the pathetic or backwards efforts of the institutions and national programs around you.

Youd be better off saying what about India (they’re a decade behind China but on the same path of doing something unlike lazy you and your country) or better off saying what about Africa (they’re not doing anything but wont be a problem until their coming two billion population boom is the last climate straw to kill off the world in the next fifty years.)

[TrueMetis]

Making a comparison to illustrate something's relative importance to other things is fine, if your local police talk about how their going to focus all their resources in dealing with speeding, it's fine to then ask "what about the murder spree that's been happening?"

The issue, is when the what about is then followed by 1) something fucking trivial (what about her emails?) 2) something you have no control over (what about China?) 3) something that's already, or is being, dealt with. (what about her emails and what about China)

So examples of whataboutism:

A: "X thing that Trump did is bad."

B: "What about her emails."

Or

A: "Climate change is going to have significant impact on our future, we should look at what we can do as an individual to reduce our carbon impact"

B: "What about China?"

Not whataboutism

A: "We should intervene militarily in Venezuela"

B: "What about all the countries that are as bad or worse that no one's arguing for intervention in or are actively supporting? Why is Venezuela so special?"

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

but to refocus the question on china in a debate about one's own footprint is irrational, no, if by such refocus one seeks to evade accountability?

How is it irrational? It's the classic rational response that results in the tragedy of the commons. When you have a shared resource (e.g. the Earth's atmosphere) and an advantage that can be gained by exploiting or spoiling this resource (e.g. cheap energy from fossil fuels), it's perfectly rational to reply to calls to cease exploiting or spoiling the resource with "But what about everyone else?" If you do not do this and unilaterally cease exploiting or spoiling, the end result will be that you're doubly screwed because the resource will still be spoiled or depleted and, unlike the people who didn't stop, you didn't even get anything out of it.

More generally, I agree with Free Northman Reborn that the "What about...?" question is neither irrational nor fallacious when used to determine priority or motive. For example, it makes perfect sense for the masses being asked to spend the very limited to non-existent discretionary income at their disposal for more expensive but cleaner technology to ask "What about all of the private jets of the people who are asking?

[sologdin]

kids, if you're on trial for murdering a person, the defense strategy of whatabout ted bundy watabout dahmer WUTBOUT HITLAR results in a conviction.  this is beyond basic.

[sologdin]

Scott’s question is whether “whataboutisms” are always fallacies

doubtful.  he asked if a particular fallacy is ever a valid attack on an argument.  fallacies are by definition invalid.

y'all are changing the debate by asking questions about motive or priority in the making of an argument; those are legitimate discussions in themselves, but they are non-responsive to arguments to which they are tangential; if they are the only attempt to respond to an argument, then they are a concession of that argument.  these strike me as fox news evasions, to be candid: don't worry about the argument; just challenge the arguer's motives.  it is a classic irrationalism--but obviously effective in making a distraction.

[James Arryn]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Scott’s question is whether “whataboutisms” are always fallacies. And the answer is obviously no. Lets up the stakes in my China example in order to demonstrate that.

Let’s say the orginal argument was that the world will be irrevocably wrecked and humanity will die out if our carbon footprint is not brought below some arbitrary level. And that the argument is that we must therefore reduce our carbon footprint. However, let’s assume that in this example China have stated that they have no intention to do so for the next 100 years, and that even if everyone else did so out of moral conviction, the world will still be wrecked without China falling in line.

In that case it is entirely logical to say hey, whatabout China? And if the motive of the original argument  is really to save the planet, the logical focus should then rather be on say nuking China to save the species, instead of getting Bob in Nebraska to recycle his beer cans.

To follow that line of reasoning to it’s conclusion would be to absolve everyone of doing anything until everyone else became perfect. It’s so obviously a self-serving provisional rationalization that I’m amazed anyone is trying to argue it’s merit. So, no. China or whoever behaving in a manner which further endangers humanity is not sufficient argument to not stop people we can control from likewise endangering humanity. It would take some kind of micro-precise and ridiculously self-serving calculations to determine exactly how much our contributions to hasten the end of the planet are rendered irrelevant by what someone else contributes. Let’s say China is cutting mankind’s time by 100 years. Does that okay us cutting it a further 50? Does it okay cutting it a single second?

How far up your own ass do you have to be to think it somehow does? And where does this pinpoint precision in the calculation needed to know where our effect is made redundant come from, what sudden and zealous faith in the science of ecology could possibly exorcise doubt in previously reluctant converts to acknowledging the existence of the problem at all? Or is the common thread selfish people continuing to find excuses to behave as though life outside their interests is completely unimportant under a different banner?

edit: was there like an afternoon in October 2016 between those folks arguing ‘not my problem/no one even knows if global warming is happening and why’ and ‘not my problem/other people are doing it anyways’ where that same crowd acknowledged that their own material interests might be worth mitigating for the sake of the planet? It must have been a glorious moment. 

[Zorral]

EXCEPT, when it comes to questions such as US driving its military forces into Venezuela -- for one example only -- what aboutism is really asking , is the fundamental, essential question:

Show us an example where the US driving its military (and other) forces into another country ever made anything better for the average person of that country.

Rather than, usually, making them worse off, hmmmm?  Especially when the US retreats taking its marbles home with them, and leaving all their supporters ... well you know how they are left, especially translators, facilitators etc. yes.?