Whataboutery: Be Aware of This Common Fallacy

[Three]

Originally Published on Medium. 

https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/whataboutery-don-t-do-it-df00f8667578#.anospiwty



There’s a tactic I’ve noticed my opponents use in disagreements I’ve had recently that I find really irritating. It goes like this:

You bring up a criticism of something, like say Islamic terrorism, and instead of having your criticism evaluated, accepted, or rebutted, someone completely bypasses everything that you had just said with a, “what about” statement.

Here are a few simplified examples.

Islamic terrorism has resulted in x numbers of civilian deaths this year.

“Yes, but what about American foreign policy!?!”

The

contains anti male themes and here are the instances from that film which support that thesis.

“Yes, but what about when this character did this in the prequels?!?”

People on the left use this manipulative argument quite often.

“Yes, but what about the right. People on the right use manipulative arguments too?!”

Studies show that females abuse in this way at this specific rate each year.

“Yes, but what about the MEN?!?!”

Little do people know that cats bite humans at a rate of x per year.

“Yes, but what about Dogs?!?”

I’ve been trying to articulate my frustrations about these kinds of responses for a few months now, so it was to my great delight that Richard Dawkins did just that while I was listening to his autobiography , “Brief Candle in The Dark.”

“’Of course’, Christian apologists reply when you criticize the old testament, ’we all know about the awkward and embarrassing passages in the old testament. But, what about the new testament?’

Whataboutery is a new abstract noun that is in the process of entering our language. It has a wikipedia entry, but it has yet to make it into the Oxford English Dictionary. It is often used to down play a negative point by diverting attention to something else. “- Richard Dawkins

Hopefully, by giving others the language to identify this response, it will save people from the frustration and confusion I’ve been experiencing from it for some time now.

 

[BD91]

Don't forget the ultimate:

 

Yes, but  WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS?!?!?!

 

 

and, Idk if it's "fallacy" per se. But it's definitely not any form of serious rebuttal. Just attempt to take the dominant frame of the conversation.

[vforvoluntary]

I agree that this argument is extremely annoying. Just because I condemn x done by someone does not mean that I accept x when it is done by someone else. One cannot condemn everyone engaging in x in one conversation

[Will Torbald]

Because you're arguing subsets of a whole instead of addressing the whole. My left arm is on fire, but what about my right arm that is being eaten? Both are correct. Whataboutery can be avoided if you begin your argument about wholesome issues, like abuse, rather than female abuse. You are doing the same mistake your annoying friend is doing by ultra-focusing on subsets.

[Anuojat]

Id call this deflection and trying to find some "common" ground where to stick the arguement in so it doesnt seem as important or makes it seems like every concern is equally valid ect.

 

What about X is subtle way of saying "well if X and Y are both bad then why focus on this one?" And thus is used to deflect and avoid a difficult subject.

[Lykourgos]

Because you're arguing subsets of a whole instead of addressing the whole. My left arm is on fire, but what about my right arm that is being eaten? Both are correct. Whataboutery can be avoided if you begin your argument about wholesome issues, like abuse, rather than female abuse. You are doing the same mistake your annoying friend is doing by ultra-focusing on subsets.

 

This does seem to be the case a lot of the time; whataboutery can be a way of highlighting the scope of the discussion. If the scope is wrong, important points can be lost by the wayside.

[shirgall]

Because you're arguing subsets of a whole instead of addressing the whole. My left arm is on fire, but what about my right arm that is being eaten? Both are correct. Whataboutery can be avoided if you begin your argument about wholesome issues, like abuse, rather than female abuse. You are doing the same mistake your annoying friend is doing by ultra-focusing on subsets.

 

This would be true if the "whataboutrists" weren't trying to confuse the issue by pushing the discussion to be too abstract, or simply to change the subject away from what they find uncomfortable.

[Will Torbald]

This would be true if the "whataboutrists" weren't trying to confuse the issue by pushing the discussion to be too abstract, or simply to change the subject away from what they find uncomfortable.

I don't doubt that's what people are using it for, just avoiding an emotional distress, but as a rational tactic they are indeed right that focusing /only/ on one side is not rigorous. If you could maintain them on the big picture without letting go of their subset at the same time you have a chance at making a difference.

[A4E]

I suggest a way to deflate this whataboutery. A standard response like this: "Right, that is exactly why we need to talk about this. Great, we are on the same page!". Might work in 80% of all cases or more. I see that Will Torbald touched on it while I am making this post.

 

A thousand foreigners are to be arrested for group fondling 60 women in germany on new years eve.

"Yes, but what about women being stoned to death or hanged after being raped in foreign countries?"

 

-Right, that is exactly why we need to talk about this. Great, we are on the same page!

 

I guess that one was easy, but just try yourself on the other examples and you will see.

 

 

(edit: My initial source on the germany new years eve incident was misinterpreted)

[Carl Green]

Yes, but... =  I don't care what you just said, here's what I think.

 

It's favored by word weasels because it still contains the word yes even though what they're actually saying is "No, you're wrong"

Probably to maintain some sort of facade of good discourse.

 

Its use is an abhorrent, non-empathetic practice indeed.

[Three]

Because you're arguing subsets of a whole instead of addressing the whole. My left arm is on fire, but what about my right arm that is being eaten? Both are correct. Whataboutery can be avoided if you begin your argument about wholesome issues, like abuse, rather than female abuse. You are doing the same mistake your annoying friend is doing by ultra-focusing on subsets.

 

Whataboutery is an attempt to down play a negative point by diverting attention to something else. 

 

 

Well, let's say I bring up a specific issue like abuse that is perpetrated by females.

 

The reason I'd be doing that would not be to distract us from the abuse perpetrated by males. The reason I'd be bringing up something specific like that rather than talking about abuse in general terms, is because it is important and often overlooked. And thus, that is why I would be bringing one's attention to that specific thing rather than something else. 

 

So, the definition of whataboutery would not apply to me simply due to the fact that I'm bringing one's attention to something specific.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Will Torbald]

 

Whataboutery is an attempt to down play a negative point by diverting attention to something else.

 

 

Well, let's say I bring up a specific issue like abuse that is perpetrated by females.

 

The reason I'd be doing that would not be to distract us from the abuse perpetrated by males. The reason I'd be bringing up something specific like that rather than talking about abuse in general terms, is because it is important and often overlooked. And thus, that is why I would be bringing one's attention to that specific thing rather than something else.

 

So, the definition of whataboutery would not apply to me simply due to the fact that I'm bringing one's attention to something specific.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's fair and I understand the frustration. What I would do in that case is by beginning the argument with the large topic of abuse, and don't proceed to make it specific before they agree that no matter who is making the abuse it is universally wrong. "Good, we both agree that no matter whoever is abusing it is always wrong. Which is why I am also interested in the subject of abuse done by women (...)" Something like that. So if they try to divert you to another subset, just remind them that they already agreed that all abuse is wrong.

[shirgall]

They are agreeing with the principle, and don't know how to reconcile that with the objections they've heard from others. I wonder whether the tack should be to re-visit the principle and see whether they can recognize the need to respect principles, or if they are completely relativistic. If we can find an instance of them sticking to their principles despite problems with the "how," maybe we can gain acknowledgement of the agreement with the principle, the need to adhere to principles, and then we are talking about details of implementation with an ally instead of an adversary. Maybe I'm being all pollyanna-ish here, but it seems to me that is how I came around to an-cap ideas.

 

A lot of the time they are downplaying the issue by giving is a light agreement and condescendingly imply that some other issue is far more worthy of spending their precious attention. When I encounter whataboutrists it's all about steering the conversation to subjects that more comfortably serve their agenda.

[Three]

To be clear, I don't think that every time somebody says, "well, what about" it's always and necessarily a diversion. The thing I'm  talking about is the specific definition I mentioned.


Also, great suggestions by the way. 

[fezjones]

being logical is a virtue

 

1+1=2

 

but what about cultures who dont have math in their language?  doesnt that prove logic isnt a virtue?

 

therefore not knowing 1+1=2 can be virtuous.

[DCLugi]

Sometimes you can turn it around.

 

A: Democrats want a nanny government to control everything with force.

 

B: Yes, but what about Republicans who want to use taxes for a giant military?

 

A: Thanks for pointing that out. So we agree that neither are virtuous.

 

B: But, I already have the bumper sticker.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Would it be fair to classify this as a red herring fallacy?

 

For instance, if you were to bring up abuse propagated by women in society, and you were responded to with "but what about men?"

 

The implication would be that:

 

1) we cannot talk about female abuse without talking about male abuse

 

Another iteration might be as follows:

 

If you're in an argument about the morality of government, you might say "government is the initiation of force." Your opponent might respond "but who is going to license the glass dildos?." This would also be a red herring fallacy, since it misdirects from the point in question (i.e. the morality of government).

 

Where it might not be a red herring to say "yea, but what about x" is when x is a contradicting factor to the point in question. If you say "blacks commit the most crime, so you should watch your back around them" (yes I made you the paranoid guy), then if I bring up the fact that "yea, but the vast majority of blacks are not criminal" this would not be a red herring fallacy since it is contradicting to the point which was brought up.

 

When you say "but" you need to actually make a disagreement. Otherwise, the proper conjunction is "and." 

 

But I bet you won't hear most people respond to your "females abuse men at x% in relationships" with "Yes, and men do it at y% (which is lower)"

 

A good response to "yea, but what about men?!" in that context might be..

 

Men are victims of this abuse. That is what I am saying!

 

If they don't get it, then obviously they were trying to install you with doubt by using a "but" statement without providing any contradictory information. At that point they can either stomp away angrily or come to a better understanding of the reality of society.

[fezjones]

Would it be fair to classify this as a red herring fallacy?

 

For instance, if you were to bring up abuse propagated by women in society, and you were responded to with "but what about men?"

 

The implication would be that:

 

1) we cannot talk about female abuse without talking about male abuse

 

Another iteration might be as follows:

 

If you're in an argument about the morality of government, you might say "government is the initiation of force." Your opponent might respond "but who is going to license the glass dildos?." This would also be a red herring fallacy, since it misdirects from the point in question (i.e. the morality of government).

 

Where it might not be a red herring to say "yea, but what about x" is when x is a contradicting factor to the point in question. If you say "blacks commit the most crime, so you should watch your back around them" (yes I made you the paranoid guy), then if I bring up the fact that "yea, but the vast majority of blacks are not criminal" this would not be a red herring fallacy since it is contradicting to the point which was brought up.

 

When you say "but" you need to actually make a disagreement. Otherwise, the proper conjunction is "and." 

 

But I bet you won't hear most people respond to your "females abuse men at x% in relationships" with "Yes, and men do it at y% (which is lower)"

 

A good response to "yea, but what about men?!" in that context might be..

 

Men are victims of this abuse. That is what I am saying!

 

If they don't get it, then obviously they were trying to install you with doubt by using a "but" statement without providing any contradictory information. At that point they can either stomp away angrily or come to a better understanding of the reality of society.

 

yep. red herring is very common.  i think its also just shocking how people ignore the fact that all the "free" stuff government gives us, they are paying for with taxes.  people dont even know that social security is matched by their employer and that depresses wages etc.

 

nerd wallet looked at this, and they concluded that the average household in the US pays $19000 a year in taxes.  and i dont think they included that SS tax the employer pays.

 

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/cities/how-much-do-americans-really-pay-taxes-2015/