• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will you take a pledge to avoid "whataboutism" arguments?

Will you take a pledge to avoid "whataboutism" arguments?

  • I agree to never make "whataboutism" arguments from here on out.

    Votes: 11 37.9%

  • Yo mamma. I'll use "whataboutism" when and where I feel like it.

    Votes: 18 62.1%
  • Total voters
    29
Cardinal

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,621
Reaction score
98,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have taken to making whataboutist arguments fairly regularly in response to what I perceive as what has come to be a standard debate tactic from the Right. It was pointed out to me in another thread just now that I made a whataboutist post (which was, to be fair, in response to a whataboutist post). Regardless, there is no doubting that anybody who uses whataboutism is just part of an ongoing problem that effectively breaks debate. I would stop using it, except for the feeling that if everybody on the left were to stop using whataboutism, it would really just be the Right who engages in the tactic (the "prisoner's dilemma").

Therefore I came up with the idea of a pledge to avoid using whataboutism arguments. But in order to avoid a prisoner's dilemma situation, the pledge would only apply within the group of people who also make the pledge. In other words, for every person who takes the pledge, I agree never to use whataboutism in response to their posts (until or unless, of course, they break that pledge). It's just a rough idea at the moment, but it seems okay on the surface of it.

What say ye?

For those who may be compelled to say, "How about you just don't use whataboutism?" I'll say in response, "You know who you are, and you know if this applies to you." Also, that "prisoner's dilemma" thing.
 
Last edited:
Many seem to conflate pointing out hypocrisy as whataboutism. I was always under the impression that whataboutism is the justification of a position by pointing to precedent set by the opposition. So in order to do something like this, shouldn't you define exactly what it is you wish to discourage?
 
Nap said:
Many seem to conflate pointing out hypocrisy as whataboutism. I was always under the impression that whataboutism is the justification of a position by pointing to precedent set by the opposition. So in order to do something like this, shouldn't you define exactly what it is you wish to discourage?
Click to expand...

"Pointing out hypocrisy" is everybody's bull**** rationalization for the use of whataboutism. Either you intend to address the topic of the debate or you don't.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
"Pointing out hypocrisy" is everybody's bull**** justification for the use of whataboutism. Either you intend to address the topic of the debate or you don't.
Click to expand...

You can still address the topic while still pointing out the hypocritical stance of the person you are discussing it with.
 
I see TrumpPutins here @ DP all the time doing the Obama whataboutism & the Hillary wahataboutism.

They constantly wreck & derail threads with their bull**** whataboutisms.

They will just keep on doing it; they don't have anything else.
 
Nap said:
You can still address the topic while still pointing out the hypocritical stance of the person you are discussing it with.
Click to expand...

It's clear that you've staked out your position on this matter. Thank you for your contribution.
 
Cardinal said:
It's clear that you've staked out your position on this matter. Thank you for your contribution.
Click to expand...

That I agree whataboutism is not good, but that we seem to have differing opinions on what constitutes whataboutism?
 
I think the goal of whataboutism most of the time is not to prove an argument, but to show an inherent bias.

Because(Trump understands this) the current political climate is not about making better arguments, it's a power and cultural struggle of two sides in which their only goal is to make one side look to be the absolute worst while at the same time make their side look innocent.

If you are guilty of heavy bias and participate in partisanship, and don't take debate objectively, make unverified claims, hyperbole and appeal to emotion.... you kind of deserve a whataboutism response.... they all come together as one big dysfunctional family.

I personally try to avoid all those things most of the time, unless I'm dealing with the above.
 
Cardinal said:
I have taken to making whataboutist arguments fairly regularly in response to what I perceive as what has come to be a standard debate tactic from the Right. It was pointed out to me in another thread just now that I made a whataboutist post (which was, to be fair, in response to a whataboutist post). Regardless, there is no doubting that anybody who uses whataboutism is just part of an ongoing problem that effectively breaks debate. I would stop using it, except for the feeling that if everybody on the left were to stop using whataboutism, it would really just be the Right who engages in the tactic (the "prisoner's dilemma").

Therefore I came up with the idea of a pledge to avoid using whataboutism arguments. But in order to avoid a prisoner's dilemma situation, the pledge would only apply within the group of people who also make the pledge. In other words, for every person who takes the pledge, I agree never to use whataboutism in response to their posts (until or unless, of course, they break that pledge). It's just a rough idea at the moment, but it seems okay on the surface of it.

What say ye?

For those who may be compelled to say, "How about you just don't use whataboutism?" I'll say in response, "You know who you are, and you know if this applies to you." Also, that "prisoner's dilemma" thing.
Click to expand...

Obama never took this pledge.


lol
 
What you call "Whataboutism" seems to pop up whenever someone notes what they feel is hypocrisy in a response regarding some current action in the news.

Usually occurs when someone is complaining in the "now" about something they did not seem to have a problem with when it was done by someone back in the "then" whom they supported.

I try not to use it much, but I have when I felt such hypocrisy needs to be pointed out...and I have no major problems when someone who opposes my views brings it up.

So no, I do not intend to pledge against using a valid tool of debate simply because some in the Forum use it/abuse it too frequently.

NOTE: IMO this "tool" is more valid than the constant name-calling and denigrating labeling being used by several members of the Forum in responses and OP's.

THAT is something worthwhile that people in this Forum should be willing to pledge not to do anywhere other than in the Basement.
 
Last edited:
No. Because, we don't live in a vacuum, and sometimes whataboutism lends perspective to an otherwise lopsided discussion.

It's like a child screaming that Billy stole his candy. That's bad, for sure, but you learn that the boy stole candy from Billy for two weeks straight, you begin to see a different story emerge.

Whataboutism gets a bad name, but in reality -- it's intellectual honesty.
 
I've found there is a correlation between whataboutism and dodging inescapable truths.

It's far easier to use the whataboutism card than to honestly admit you've got nothing relevant and germane.
 
It’s puzzling why “whataboutism” was only viewed as a problem with this president. Could that be because there’s a little more vulnerability to it?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I do not intend to pledge against using a valid tool of debate simply because some in the Forum use it/abuse it too frequently.
Click to expand...

"Valid tool of debate"? Oh man, that's rich. Whataboutism is simply a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
 
X Factor said:
It’s puzzling why “whataboutism” was only viewed as a problem with this president. Could there be a little more vulnerability to it?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? This President LOVES whataboutism. He engages in it nearly everyday.
 
Atomic Kid said:
"Valid tool of debate"? Oh man, that's rich. Whataboutism is simply a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Click to expand...

ONLY if used for that sole purpose. Not if simply a comment pointing out the response conflicts with previously stated positions on the topic, while the actual counter-argument is based on refuting or disproving the argument.

In any case the my point regards open discussion forums like this, not "formal debates." BTW those can occur here, and there are rules and procedures to initiate and conduct formal debates in the Forum if both parities agree.
 
Last edited:
Are we in agreement on what we are talking about?

I have taken whataboutism to basically mean an argument based on ignoring a wrong because of some other wrong, or an appeal to the hypocrisy of saying something is wrong from a position of supporting some other wrong. "What about" boiling down to ignoring why something is wrong by pointing out the hypocrisy of the opposition claiming something at all.

The best example being excusing a lying politician one agrees with but pointing out some other lying politician one does not agree with. Not quite a double standard but really the fallacy of suggesting, even if by accident, that two wrongs make a right.

If we agree on that definition then I understand the spirit of the pledge, our only concern is often time in politics our own leanings reveal we tend to do this even if by accident. We know two wrongs do not make a right, but we also know politicians tend to lie (sticking with my example.)

Defending (or even ignoring) Trump lying about some subject by offering Obama lied about some other subject is in itself whataboutism. In all fairness we should be harsh on all of them regardless of the lie or the subject simply because of the nature of politics and its impact on us, but we often do not and I worry a pledge would be accepted and in time ignored.
 
Captain Adverse said:
ONLY if used for that sole purpose. Not if simply a comment pointing out the response conflicts with previously stated positions on the topic, while the actual argument is based on refuting or disproving the argument.
Click to expand...

That IS the purpose it is mostly used for on here. Nearly every time it's but,but Hillary or but, but Obama. It has devolved down into the realm of the ridiculous.
 
Wouldn’t the best counter to “whataboutism” actually be consistency?
 
Nap said:
Many seem to conflate pointing out hypocrisy as whataboutism. I was always under the impression that whataboutism is the justification of a position by pointing to precedent set by the opposition. So in order to do something like this, shouldn't you define exactly what it is you wish to discourage?
Click to expand...

Pointing out hypocracy, while potentially useful, doesn't address the underlying argument.
 
Captain Adverse said:
What you call "Whataboutism" seems to pop up whenever someone notes what they feel is hypocrisy in a response regarding some current action in the news.

Usually occurs when someone is complaining in the "now" about something they did not seem to have a problem with when it was done by someone back in the "then" whom they supported.

I try not to use it much, but I have when I felt such hypocrisy needs to be pointed out...and I have no major problems when someone who opposes my views brings it up.

So no, I do not intend to pledge against using a valid tool of debate simply because some in the Forum use it/abuse it too frequently.

NOTE: IMO this "tool" is more valid than the constant name-calling and denigrating labeling being used by several members of the Forum in responses and OP's.

THAT is something worthwhile that people in this Forum should be willing to pledge not to do anywhere other than in the Basement.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a valid tool for purposes of refuting someone's argument. Hypocracy should be called out but simply calling someone a hypocrite, even when deserved, doesn't refute the argument.
 
Captain Adverse said:
What you call "Whataboutism" seems to pop up whenever someone notes what they feel is hypocrisy in a response regarding some current action in the news.

Usually occurs when someone is complaining in the "now" about something they did not seem to have a problem with when it was done by someone back in the "then" whom they supported.

I try not to use it much, but I have when I felt such hypocrisy needs to be pointed out...and I have no major problems when someone who opposes my views brings it up.

So no, I do not intend to pledge against using a valid tool of debate simply because some in the Forum use it/abuse it too frequently.

NOTE: IMO this "tool" is more valid than the constant name-calling and denigrating labeling being used by several members of the Forum in responses and OP's.

THAT is something worthwhile that people in this Forum should be willing to pledge not to do anywhere other than in the Basement.
Click to expand...

Whataboutism = anything the Libbos don't like. It's the new "you're a liar/racist/fascist".
 
Gaius46 said:
I don't see it as a valid tool for purposes of refuting someone's argument. Hypocracy should be called out but simply calling someone a hypocrite, even when deserved, doesn't refute the argument.
Click to expand...

Are YOU taking this pledge?
 
Atomic Kid said:
"Valid tool of debate"? Oh man, that's rich. Whataboutism is simply a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Click to expand...

If you complain constantly about Trump doing something that you didn't complain about when Obama or Clinton did, then its a valid response to point out the hypocrisy. Its like "feminists" who were part of the "Move on" movement concerning Bill Clinton's harassment of women who went ballistic over Trump's alleged whoring or harassment.
 
Atomic Kid said:
"Valid tool of debate"? Oh man, that's rich. Whataboutism is simply a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Click to expand...

Only if it's used to prove an argument.

Because, most of the time whataboutism is used in a very political argument, there is a heavy suggestion that If :peace is true, than Republicans/Obama/New Zealand/whatever are bad and people in my position, world view, political party are good. It is not a simple argument of if :peace is true, than this argument is a bad argument.

Whataboutism become relevant in this partisan environment. Because politics is a partisan environment. You can look at the argument in a completely closed system and a whataboutism is completely irrelevent, but as soon as it is brought into the political landscape EVERYTHING in the open system becomes relevant as well.

Because as a debater you can dishonestly look at the system as a closed system in order to make an open system argument... and if you do that in a biased way, a whataboutism is completely relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom