Media, Information Control and Misinformation

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Wikipedia example is, "and you are lynching Negroes".
Article:
During the Stalin era, praise for the quality of any aspect of US life prompted the rejoinder "Yes, but they lynch Blacks, don't they?

That was never not acknowledged, it's just completely offtopic, and therefore Whataboutism.

Article:
"And you are lynching Negroes" (Russian: "А у вас негров линчуют", A u vas negrov linchuyut; which also means "Yet, in your [country], [they] lynch Negroes" and the modern translation "And you are lynching black people") are catchphrases that describe or satirize Soviet Union responses to United States criticisms of Soviet human rights violations.[1][2]
 
1. Chuck criticizes Lucy for stealing. Lucy says yeah but you steal too (not whataboutism?)

2. Chuck criticizes Lucy for stealing. Lucy says yeah but you hit people (whataboutism?)

I think the bigger problem than a nonanalogous comparison (example 2) is that both examples try to justify an injustice by a previous injustice. Example 1 doesn’t justify Lucy, it just proves Chuck’s hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
is that both examples try to justify an injustice
i never see whataboutisms as trying to "justify" anything. if you didn't consider the initial example as "wrong", then how do you find a similar "wrong" example to throw back on the other person?

i know most outlets paint whataboutisms as always 'trying to excuse behavior', but when i get accused of whataboutism i am never trying to excuse behavior.

example 2. doesn't justify Lucy either.


add ex:

husabnd: i cant believe you wasted money on that dress.

wife1: what about when you bought that xbox last month?
vs wife 2: i need the dress for your retirement dinner. and brace yourself, because i also need new shoes to go with the dress.
 
Last edited:
1. Chuck criticizes Lucy for stealing. Lucy says yeah but you steal too (not whataboutism?)

2. Chuck criticizes Lucy for stealing. Lucy says yeah but you hit people (whataboutism?)
Yes.

Example 1 argues a double standard, i.e. "if it's justified for you, it ought to be justified for me". It requires Chuck to argue how Lucy's act differs from his morally, or for Chuck to admit that his own behaviour was wrong; otherwise Chuck's position will be logically inconsistent and therefore invalid.

In example 2, Lucy's rejoinder doesn't address Chuck's criticism at all. It's just an attempt to switch topics to one that favors Lucy. The validity of Chuck's criticism is not actually in question here, which makes this counter-argument a logical fallacy.

(I'd still like to see examples from the current conflict.)
 
Last edited:
ps. what is the logical fallacy called when you accuse someone of trying to justify some behavior, when they are not trying to justify some behavior? would that be a strawman?
 
@Agent K and @FatPhil (and anybody else), I'd really like to see some current examples, mostly because I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Whataboutism has a structure of "A accuses B of bad thing 1, B counters by accusing A of bad thing 2", with things 1 and 2 being only superficially related at best.

Putin using Kosovo as analogy to Donbass doesn't fit this pattern; the B counter here is "when A does it, this is a good thing".
That's very common whataboutism: false equivalences and accusations of hypocrisy, e.g. "Do as we say, not as we do." One example comes to mind unrelated to Ukraine.

Article:

Putin Cites Death of Ashli Babbitt to Deflect from Treatment of Russian Prisoners​

Putin was responding to a question during a press conference in Geneva, Switzerland, from a reporter who asked whether the fact that many of his political opponents were “dead, in prison, or poisoned” sent a message that he didn’t want “a fair political fight.”

“On the question of who is murdering whom, people rioted and went into the Congress in the United States with political demands,” Putin replied, invoking the mob that entered the Capitol on Jan. 6. “Many people were declared criminals and they were threatened with imprisonment for 20 to 25 years. And these people were immediately arrested after those events. On what grounds, we don’t know.”
“One of the participants was just shot on the spot — and [she was] unarmed as well,” he added. “Many countries are going through exactly what we are going through.”

I've probably simply not been exposed to enough Russian propaganda or Putin apologism to remember examples.
Putin literally accused Ukraine of committing genocide. What's worse than that?

But it's not just Putin.

Article:

I Was Wrong About Putin​

When U.S. intelligence started saying that Russia would invade Ukraine, I didn’t believe it.
About the author: Sergei Dobrynin is a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

I admit that even I continued to make excuses for Putin long after doing so was reasonable. For instance, I condemned the 2014 annexation of Crimea even as I indulged in whataboutism, pointing out that Putin was hardly the only leader on the world stage to disrespect national boundaries. Perhaps because of my math-and-science background, I had a tendency to coldheartedly look for rational explanations for outrageous behavior.
 
(I'd still like to see examples from the current conflict.)
I think you and I understand whataboutism slightly differently, but the following example might fit your criteria. If not, it is a clear cut example of tu quoque.

This is an excerpt from the speech Putin gave on February 24 stating his reasons for his action in Ukraine. The list of other nations’ alleged violations of international law serves as a kind of preamble. The whole speech is interesting for those who haven’t read the English translation.

First, without any sanction from the UN Security Council, they [US and allies] carried out a bloody military operation against Belgrade, using aircraft and missiles right in the very centre of Europe…

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya, Syria. The illegitimate use of military force against Libya, the perversion of all decisions of the UN Security Council on the Libyan issue led to the complete destruction of the state, to the emergence of a huge hotbed of international terrorism, to the fact that the country plunged into a humanitarian catastrophe that has not stopped for many years. civil war...

A similar fate was prepared for Syria. The fighting of the Western coalition on the territory of this country without the consent of the Syrian government and the sanction of the UN Security Council is nothing but aggression, intervention.

However, a special place in this series is occupied, of course, by the invasion of Iraq, also without any legal grounds. Surprising, but the fact remains. There were lies at the highest state level and from the high rostrum of the UN…

All that I have said is the most egregious, but by no means the only examples of disregard for international law.
Source: https://www.ejiltalk.org/what-is-russias-legal-justification-for-using-force-against-ukraine/
 
Last edited:
That's a lie, not whataboutism. "We're invading special operationing Ukraine because Ukraine is killing a minority" is a logical argument, see Operation Deliberate Force. It's logical, but the premise is false.
Lies go hand in hand with whataboutism, e.g. "What about the genocide that Ukraine has been perpetrating for the last 8 years?" But yes, this example is more than just whataboutism because the so-called genocide was cited as a reason for the "special operation" rather than just a deflection of criticism. I suppose you could say the same about all the other grievances in Putin's speech.

That's why I mentioned "Putin apologists" in my posts.
Here's one from yesterday along the lines of "When A does it, this is a good thing."

Article:

Russian Ambassador Tells Iranian Media How Not To Ask About The Invasion Of Ukraine​

What began as an attempt by a Russian diplomat to explain his country's position in the ongoing nuclear talks turned into a scolding over how Iranian journalists should refer to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
...
"In the eight-year war with Iraq, you had a slogan: 'War, war until victory,'" Dzhagaryan said, referring to Iran’s bloody 1980-88 conflict with its western neighbor. "And that is our slogan today."

You see, whether it's good or bad doesn't matter in whataboutism. All that matters is that you can't criticize us if you did the same thing or worse. If it's good, you should support us. If it's bad, you're in no position to criticize us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top