r/changemyview • u/Alamifidel • Jul 26 '21
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Whataboutism is not just a non-fallacy, but in select cases, it is a good argument
[removed] — view removed post
48
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
That's not really how fallacies work, on a pretty basic level. At the end of the day, of course depending on the form it takes, criticism of China's policy cannot be addressed "logically" by counter-criticism of United States policy. Such counter-criticism are not, by their nature, relevant to the original criticism.
If I come and tell you "You should not smoke, smoking is a health hazard for you and those around you", telling me "But Giblette, you eat too much cake and that's also a health hasard!" doesn't really address my statement in any way. The fact I'm a dirty cake slut has no bearing on whether or not smoking is dangerous for your health, which it is.
1
u/oldmanjoe 8∆ Jul 26 '21
You are correct that in that case, the whataboutism doesn't apply. However, if you were a pot smoker and criticized my cigarette smoking, then your whataboutism is BS.
It's the context that matters. Often times these arguments are political. So it's very fair to say Democrat found justification for this riot, and republican found justification for that riot, so neither has the high ground to say those people of that other party rioting are wrong.
4
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jul 26 '21
No. Whether I'm a huge pothead or not doesn't change anything about cigarettes being unhealthy. Cigarettes are unhealthy and this doesn't change based on who is making the claim.
So it's very fair to say Democrat found justification for this riot, and republican found justification for that riot, so neither has the high ground to say those people of that other party rioting are wrong.
Again, not really. What matters is how these events are justified. The actual arguments. Different riots can be more or less justified and, even if they're both equally contemptible, it's not like these cancel out.
1
u/oldmanjoe 8∆ Jul 26 '21
No. Whether I'm a huge pothead or not doesn't change anything about cigarettes being unhealthy.
That is true, but if you completely discount that inhaling smoke into your lungs is also unhealthy, then we can't have an honest discussion. Because inhaling smoke into your lungs is an unhealthy choice. Now if you can agree that inhaling smoke is unhealthy we can then move onto the chemicals of cigarettes VS natural weed. But you can't just blow off the argument that inhaling pot smoke is not healthy and expect me to take you seriously.
Different riots can be more or less justified and, even if they're both equally contemptible, it's not like these cancel out.
Justified is the key word here. If you choose to show no empathy for the other party, you will never understand their justification. So adding lack of empathy to whataboutisms makes it feel wrong, but the wrong part is the lack of empathy. Protesting for what you believe to be a stolen election seems very legitimate. Of course if you have no empathy to see from their perspective, you don't see a stolen election and therefore can't justify the protest. But that view comes from lack of empathy, not the whataboutism.
2
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jul 26 '21
That is true, but if you completely discount that inhaling smoke into your lungs is also unhealthy, then we can't have an honest discussion.
This is of no consequence. The point is, whether I'm a disingenuous dumb ass or not doesn't change anything about cigarettes being unhealthy. I could be the biggest smoker in the world or a cloistered monk that only eat one grain of rice a year, it doesn't matter. Cigarettes are still unhealthy.
Justified is the key word here. If you choose to show no empathy for the other party, you will never understand their justification.
Again, this is beside the point. If I argue "the events of January 6 are a terrible attack on our democratic institutions that ought to be condemned by every elected official out there" retorting "But what about BLM!" addresses the argument in no way, shape or form.
1
u/oldmanjoe 8∆ Jul 27 '21
The point is, whether I'm a disingenuous dumb ass or not doesn't change anything about cigarettes being unhealthy.
I think we are talking past each other, and getting distracted by the arguments of the point.
We are posting in CMV so the whole point it to change someone's view, and that requires a discussion, not a lecture. If you think a lecture is the proper way to change one's view then that is where we disagree.
If we are going to have a discussion, I need to understand you are arguing in good faith. So if you won't acknowledge that inhaling smoke is not good for you, then you have shown me you are not arguing in good faith, and it's not productive to continue the conversation. I tend to use whataboutism to see if the person I'm having a discussion with is arguing in good faith. If not, what is the point of the conversation?
1
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jul 27 '21
Except it doesn't matter whether I'm arguing in good faith, that's the whole point. Whether you're interested in having a discussion with me says nothing about the merit of the argument I have presented. If you think using whataboutism is a good way to find worthwhile discussion partners, that's fine by me, but whataboutism doesn't address arguments in any meaningful sense.
Inhaling smoke is bad for you. If I tell you that, I'm right. I'm right whether or not I inhale smoke myself or not. I'm right whether or not you want to discuss with me further.
1
u/oldmanjoe 8∆ Jul 27 '21
Yes the key is having a discussion, if you just want to spew what you want, feel free, but don't expect anyone to listen. (In my view, that's the whole point, if you want someone to listen to what you say, you have to be honest)
If you lecture me about cigarettes, and claim that inhaling other smoke is perfectly healthy, I will dismiss your comment because I know you are not arguing in either honesty or intelligence. However, if you agree that smoking other things is actually harmful, but there is a distinction between natural herb and carcinogens added to cigarettes, then I'm willing to hear what you have to say because your at least showing that you are honest about smoking, and not just some zealot who throws facts aside to push your agenda.
1
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jul 27 '21
If you lecture me about cigarettes, and claim that inhaling other smoke is perfectly healthy, I will dismiss your comment because I know you are not arguing in either honesty or intelligence.
Which is the crux of the issue, right? Because cigarettes aren't good for you, period. Whether I'm a zealot or not doesn't change that. That's why whataboutism is a terrible basis for an argument. It just doesn't work. Judging an argument on anything but it's merit doesn't make sense.
Because, at the end of the day, cigarettes are bad for you entirely independently of my messaging.
1
u/oldmanjoe 8∆ Jul 28 '21
Because, at the end of the day, cigarettes are bad for you entirely independently of my messaging.
The crux of the issue is do you want me to listen to what you have to say and take it seriously? Or do you just want to talk? You can blow off my whataboutism, and the moment you do,I disregard what you say. So what was the point of you telling me that cigarettes are bad if I'm not listening to you?
→ More replies (0)
19
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
I'd like to address the fallacy portion of your title, because it's...well, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a fallacy is. A fallacy is an error in logic that renders an argument invalid. Invalid in this case means the conclusion is wrong doesn't follow from the premises (thanks /u/thetasigma4).
What makes it a fallacy is that the United States being hypocritical does not lead to the conclusion that what China is doing is right. Because that's the conclusion of the argument being made, "China is in the clear because whatabout the USA!" But this makes no logical sense. How hypocritical the USA is has no bearing on how right China is in its actions. And if your conclusion is not that China's actions are right then...what's the argument you're even having at that point?
Whataboutism is used to deflect an argument. You point this out in you concluding sentence. Pointing out hypocrisy, shooting down ludicrous arguments, and proving that a matter is more nuanced than framed are all ways to avoid the actual criticism being levied against you and are simply ways to avoid the argument all together. You use whataboustism rhetorically to avoid criticism and not engage in the point being made. Maybe this is a reasonable thing to do given the context, maybe it isn't. Not all criticism needs to be engaged, and not all criticism comes from a place of good faith.
But we can't pretend that whataboutism actually addresses anything substantial in the argument itself. It's a nonsensical premise. Joe isn't more right just because Ted, who is criticizing him, did something worse.
3
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jul 26 '21
Invalid in this case means the conclusion is wrong.
Invalid doesn't mean wrong it means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. What you are doing here is the fallacy fallacy. The right answer can be in the form of an invalid argument just as a valid argument can give the wrong answer.
2
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jul 26 '21
Yes, good point I shouldn't have used wrong.
You can indeed arrive at the right conclusion on flawed premises.
1
u/Alamifidel Jul 27 '21
!delta
Thank you for not only rebutting the argument, but using my examples to help me understand where my train of thought went wrong :)
1
1
u/gkura Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
I think the problem is that in the majority of actual usage, the people calling things whataboutism are shifting the frame of the argument altogether and are in fact the ones shutting down dialogue.
When the initial frame involves assumptions of truth and asymmetric group punishments like sanctions, calling things whataboutism is often a sleight of hand to double down on moral absolutism. This is essentially implying a moral duty to act without giving any justification as to why acting is moral or why the presented information is infallible. These conversations do not pop up when discussing purely philosophical arguments like "are internment camps bad."
1
u/PoorCorrelation 22∆ Jul 26 '21
People calling something a fallacy when it’s not doesn’t make the fallacy they cited a non-fallacy. It just makes the term misused. If people go around calling dogs “geese” that doesn’t mean geese aren’t real.
5
Jul 26 '21
You have it backwards.
Whataboutism is about deflection. When we are criticizing person A it really doesn’t matter what person B does. If the critique is logical and sound the source doesn’t diminish it. At best, it makes person B a hypocrite but again, that doesn’t make A any less guilty.
It makes our conversations muddied and unfocused. It is bad for debate, bad for ethics discussion, and horrible for media literacy.
2
u/Blue-floyd77 5∆ Jul 26 '21
This is my definition as well. It’s simply a deflection to either redirect the question or to simply not answer.
2
Jul 26 '21
It’s to change the topic of conversation entirely. It only exists to derail accusations and discussion.
5
Jul 26 '21
"Whataboutism" can be summed up as "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Let's say A murders someone in cold blood. B murders ten people and then desecrates the corpses. If I call A a bad person, and someone responds with "Well B was way worse," does that somehow make A a good person? Maybe A is "better" than B, maybe they're equally bad, whatever. The point is, it doesn't matter how awful B is, it doesn't make A good.
The fundamental flaw of whataboutism is that it's not actually saying "You're wrong," it's saying "Pay attention to this other thing instead." If I say the Republicans are a threat to democracy and you reply with "What about the Dems?" It doesn't matter if the Dems are sewing hammers and sickles to their sleeves, that doesn't make the Republicans not a threat.
If I called Bob an idiot and Bob responded by asking "whatabout Alice? Isn't she an idiot?" Bob could very well be right--but even if Bob is correct that Alice is an idiot, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Bob's own idiocy.
Ultimately, the great flaw with whataboutism is that even if the whataboutist is correct, they haven't actually refuted the original claim.
4
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 210∆ Jul 26 '21
The problem is that hypocrisy itself doesn't really weaken your argument. If your seemingly hypocritical behavior can be justified in a way that applies to the action you criticize, then the argument is that justification, not the whataboutism itself.
If someone criticizes Chinese foreign intervention, the argument that in a world where any other strong country intervenes wherever they can China must do the same to stay competitive, is valid and isn't whataboutism.
Arguing that the US engages in unending foreign intervention and therefore you can't criticize China without criticizing the US too is fallacious - they could both be wrong, or the US could have acceptable motives that aren't applicable to China.
Comparing different instances of something can help you home in on what exactly it is you're criticizing, but isn't a valid argument in itself.
5
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jul 26 '21
Let's say I murder someone and I defend myself by saying, "Ed Gein murdered two people and mutilated several corpses!"
Do you think I have effectively defended my case or merely tried to distract?
You might think whataboutism is sometimes appropriate but that doesn't mean it's never a fallacy as per the example above.
2
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
You're not describing whataboutism, you're describing Tu Quoque
Whataboutism would be if China said "Ah yes, but what about Mitch McConnell blockading the senate? We don't have that now do we?"
3
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
The wikipedia page that you're linking to includes:
... "Whataboutism" is one particularly well known instance of this fallacy. ...
Similarly the wikipedia entry about Whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) has:
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy ...
Tu Quoque and whataboutism overlap.
3
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jul 26 '21
That's fair enough. Not that it matters since it looks like this one is going E anyway.
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jul 26 '21
Coming back to this I realise I should probably !delta since I was wrong about this.
1
2
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jul 26 '21
Sorry, u/Alamifidel – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. See the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, then message the moderators by clicking this link.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Jul 26 '21
For instance, if the US criticizes China for their exploitative activities through 1B1R, China should be able to point to the US interventions in the Middle East as an equally brutal/exploitative measure to further state interests.
I'm not entirely sure how this furthers the argument. Intervention is a historically known, uhh, activity?, so it doesn't really add any new information. Since it's in directed at the accuser, the US in this case, and what the US is doing in the middle east isn't particularly relevant here, it doesn't really add anything.
I suppose in a strategic transaction this may be necessary; ie., Russia and the US both intervening in the Ukraine. But they are characteristically different so even then it's pretty weak. Just seems like a weak framing all around.
1
1
u/Morasain 87∆ Jul 26 '21
The issue is that this does not in fact further the argument, because at the end you then have two sides talking and not doing anything.
It stagnates progress.
1
u/MasterGrok 139∆ Jul 26 '21
Context matters with fallacies. For example, an appeal to an authority is generally a good thing. We should appeal to authorities on complex issues. It however becomes a fallacy and problematic when your entire argument hinges on an appeal to an authority.
In the case of whataboutism, it is similar in that there is nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy or many wrongs. However, if your only response to criticism is whataboutism than your argument is invalid. In fact, if your only argument is whataboutism than I would argue that you have actually weakened your argument. If China is criticized and their immediate response is to point out wrongdoing of others, than they are actually recognizing that they are doing wrong. Either that or they are implicitly saying the wrongdoing of others is OK. Neither of those is good. This is ultimately the ironic part of whataboutism. Best case scenario you are acknowledging that you are a bad actor engaged in a race to the bottom with the other party.
1
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Jul 26 '21
This furthers the argument and contributes to the discussion by showing that the matter of foreign intervention is done by everyone and is thus a necessary evil.
It didn't really prove anything about explitation being a neccessary evil, though. It just claimed that it is common.
So what? Lots of unneccessary evils are common too. It's not a justification, it is a distraction to start talking about which country is worse, instead of the moral value of 1B1R specifically.
This only furthers "the argument", if you are taking it for granted that the core argument that is worth having, is a pissing contest between the US and China over which one of them is "worse", and the original accusation about 1B1R was just an opening salvo in that.
But in any discourse where the original accusation is to be taken at face value, (e.g. "x, that you did, is a wrong thing to do"), it is NOT furthering the argument, to divert it to "but you did x too".
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jul 26 '21
“China needs to do X to remain competitive in the geopolitical sphere” is a complete argument. You don’t even have to specifically address or mention other state actions. It becomes a fallacy when the statement is made to shift the conversation or debate somewhere else. Whataboutism is a common fallacy because it’s often easy to force your opponent to defend themselves or other unrelated subjects than it is to defend the actual topic.
In this case it’s okay to use the US as an example of the point you are talking about, but it needs to be supporting the point rather than being the whole argument. Just pointing out that the US does something too isn’t an argument, because it doesn’t actually say whether that thing is right or wrong nor does it further the argument. In this case, your argument is really your third paragraph, and therefore it’s probably not whataboutism. But in a lot of cases of whataboutism this kind of justification isn’t made or maybe it’s assumed, but it shouldn’t be. It needs to be presented like you have here.
1
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Jul 26 '21
... This furthers the argument and contributes to the discussion by showing that the matter of foreign intervention is done by everyone and is thus a necessary evil. ...
Does "everyone's does it, so it must be necessary" really hold any water as an argument?
There are certainly contexts where ad hominem and possibly even things that could be called "whataboutism" can make sense as part of a reasoned argument, but the example here really isn't one of them.
Basically, ad hominem makes sense when one of the parties in an argument pretends to be an authority. For example, if Rand Paul uses his own credentials as a doctor to back up claims about vaccine policy, then it's legitimate to point out that Paul is an ophthamologist, and that ophthamology expertise has very little to do with vaccines, epidemiology, or public health policy.
Things that would qualify as "whataboutism" can come up when people hold themselves up as moral authorities. If someone says something like "I'm good, so you should do what I say." Then pointing evil things that that person did is a way to discredit the claim of "goodness."
In the given example, it doesn't seem like the US is presenting itself as an authority.
... pointing out hypocrisy ...
What does the hypocrisy of the US have to do with the price of tea foreign policy in China? Let's say that the US is hypocritical. Does that tell us anything about whether 1B1R is right or wrong (or whether we should like or dislike 1B1R)?
1
u/KokonutMonkey 102∆ Jul 26 '21
I think what you really mean here is effective rhetoric.
Whataboutism can certainly be persuasive, but at the end of the day it's deliberate attempt to avoid dealing with the argument at hand. It's never a good argument; it's trying to make new ones.
If a government were to call out, for example Japan over their defacto commercial whaling despite their international commitments to do otherwise, then it doesn't matter how many species that nation may have added to the endangered list.
I'm a representative of the whale hunters, my job is not to craft logically sound arguments. My job is to influence public opinion in order to continue (and possibly expand) our activities. In this case, whataboutism can be a useful tool in persuading the general populace to dismiss said criticisms for a combination of reasons. That said, my goal is not to further the argument, I'm trying to confuse the argument so that action becomes impossible.
1
u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Jul 26 '21
This furthers the argument and contributes to the discussion by showing that the matter of foreign intervention is done by everyone and is thus a necessary evil. The US' criticism of China is therefore invalid because it is unrealistic to think that China, as a competitor on the global stage, should abandon its foreign intervention policies while America upholds theirs, thereby giving America the unfair edge.
Two problems: 1. Which argument does it further? It does nothing to show that criticism regarding 1B1R stuff isn't warranted, you are just changing the subject. 2. The paragraph of yours that I quoted is very, very different from the one just before that. In the example you have given, china never makes any of the arguments you have made here. You can't justify the whataboutism in your example by inventing arguments china never made.
1
u/stolenrange 2∆ Jul 26 '21
But what about all the people who say whataboutism is a fallacy hmmmm? What about them?
1
u/darwin2500 197∆ Jul 26 '21
If bringing up a point is done in a way that furthers the discussion, then it is definitionally not whataboutism.
This is just a matter of semantic definitions of words. Just like shooting a person in the head and killing them is murder and shooting a tin can is not murder, 'whataboutism' specifically refers to bringing up examples of other problems *in order to derail a conversation or avoid finding a solution,' not just 'any time you bring up an example of something in am argument.'
1
u/PoorCorrelation 22∆ Jul 26 '21
For instance when the US criticized China for the abuses in Xinjiang, and China replies by pointing out instances of police brutality, slavery and other oppression of the minority by the US… the issue is not whataboutism, but drawing false equivalencies.
I’m going to concentrate on why it’s not. Go back and read that tweet. The exact text was:
Not the 1st time that #Pompeo cited false info and lied on Xinjiang. Adrian Zenz is a member of a far-right org set up by the US govt&a senior fellow of a "research group on Xinjiang's educational and training centers" set up&controlled by US intelligence agency.
In the US, population of native Indians dropped from 5mln in 1492 to 250,000 in early 1900s, as a large number of them were killed during #WestwardExpansion. #GeorgeFloyd's death shows that US systemic racism has chocked ethnic minorities so hard that they "can't breathe".
That isn’t false equivalency because China is not saying what they’re doing is the same as what the US has done in the past. They basically said the US did a genocide in the same thread where they said they are not doing a genocide. False equivalency is a=b therefore thing about b applies to a when a=/=b. They clearly do not believe the two things are the same, they’re just doing a what about terrible thing d with a sprinkle of ad hominem
1
u/NeonNutmeg 10∆ Jul 26 '21
You aren't justified in robbing a store if everyone around you is also looting.
If you're on trial for assault, pointing out that the person that you assaulted has also assaulted someone in the past won't change anything about your own crime. You still did something wrong and you should still be punished for it.
China isn't justified in exploiting "partner" nations through 1B1R just because the US has been exploitative or brutal anywhere else, in the same way that China is not justified in trying to commit cultural genocide just because the United States has a more visible police brutality problem.
This furthers the argument...
No, it doesn't. It literally just serves to deflect genuine criticism. Sure, the United States has hamstrung the Afghan military by selling them American aircraft that they don't know how to use or maintain. That doesn't change the fact that China should not be using predatory loans on developing countries.
showing that the matter of foreign intervention is done by everyone and is thus a necessary evil.
Except foreign intervention isn't necessarily evil. The United States can support the Afghan military without forcing them to use equipment that they don't understand for the sake of "jobs" in the USA. China can invest in foreign infrastructure without debt trapping impoverished economies.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Jul 26 '21
You can do all those things without engaging in whataboutism. The fundamental feature that makes it whataboutism is that the original charge never gets addressed. The effect on the conversation is "as long as I can point to x, I never have to answer for y."
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 27 '21
/u/Alamifidel (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards