Talk:Whataboutism/Archive1

Sounds very similar to ...
Sounds very similar to Not as bad as.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off
Avenger and Arisboch are engaging in whataboutery in the Saloon. Called on it, they both run over here to vandalize the article so that it would allow their whataboutery about Egypt so that the focus isn't on Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. Stop it you two. What an example of wholly bad faith editing. ---Mona- (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a shitty edit, full stop. Vague blah blah about hypothetical dictators in hypothetical countries committing hypothetical crimes, wut? I would have reverted it if I saw it first. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's totally shitty, but with a very particular motive. They were arguing with another User in the Saloon who linked to this article as rebuttal to their argument, and so they ran over here to change it in a dumb way to supposedly justify their Saloon position. That's some major bullshit, but of a piece with the behavior that's gotten both of them de-sysoped.---Mona- (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is fallacious use of whataboutism. If you don't like pointing this out, say so. And there have been real Honduran and El Salvadoran dictators. And dictators tend to execute and torture dissidents. In El Salvador this also has had nasty ethnic implications in the past, with most of the indigenous population - that were identifiable as such through customs, speech and clothing - being wiped out in one particularly nasty criminal act in the 1930s. If every time double standards are pointed out someone cries "whataboutism" this word loses all meaning. So while the example is intentionally not naming names (To decrease the potential amount of controversy), it is not made up out of thin air either. And as for Mona vandal-binning me. I just saw the reversion of my edit (respectively the reinstating of said edit by Arisboch) and reverted on sight while telling Mona to not abuse her sysop tools, because I felt that she had once again overstepped her bounds. That the reward I get for this is vandal binning just shows how thin-skinned she is. Not a desirable trait in a person with power and responsibility imho... So if we please could have a debate about whether there in fact fallacious uses of the word "whataboutism", please let's have it. Which would of course include that all interested parties be able to contribute to said debate and not be vandal binned. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * you have constantly made yourself a problem and were punished for it. That this makes it difficult for you to participate in wiki discussion is not our problem--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to make it absolutly clear I am judging only the edit here, not any previous discussions, feuds, and others things I've taken no part in. I am not siding with Mona, Arisboch, or you, I am siding with the article. Based only on the edit, I say that it's shitty. Sorry, but it is :-( In fact, your "Fallacious use" is almost an example of whataboutism, as in your example you're pointing out "but what about [something unrelated to the point]". Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given as you are the only user on this talk page who honestly seems to be interested in debating the issue on the merits, I will try to explain my point to you and all those willing to debate the issue. So I guess the problem is that I did not mention in my initial edit the most important point that I assumed could just be taken for granted as implicit. It is not whataboutism if you point out the hypocrisy of someone focusing on something (say an American without any relation to either place denouncing an Honduran dictator on human rights grounds) while ignoring the exact same thing (or even worse things) when it happens elsewhere (say that same American being silent on human rights abuses in El Salvador). The original use of whataboutism precisely refers to a Soviet use where the two things have nothing to do with each other. Soviet foreign and domestic policy have nothing to do with Jim Crowe laws. And they can't be judged by any similar yardstick excepot maybe for "both are wrong". However, you can compare the two examples I gave in an easy measure "Latin American human rights abuses" and the question why talk on the one is accompanied by silence on the other has to be raised. Imagine for example a Chavez analogue and a Pinochet analogue governing at roughly the same time. Wouldn't you point out the hypocrisy in an American Republican only pointing to the Chavez analogue and ignoring the crimes of the Pinochet analogue? And what would you respond if said Republican were to cry "whataboutism"? So on this issue and this issue alone, is there a fallacious use of whataboutism? And should it be mentioned in the article? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Whataboutism is deflection of a criticism one doesn't like by shrieking: "But X does it, too!" Or: "But X is worse!" That's what you and many Zionists do when your sacred cow -- Israel -- is at issue, and it is the sole reason you want this bogus edit. It's shit on its own merits, but your bad faith motive is also transparent. ---Mona- (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Would someone please answer whether pointing out double standards constitutes whataboutery? I mean if you hold Pinochet to different standards thaen Chavez or Farabundo Marti (1930s left wing revolutionary in El Salvador) to different standards thaen Eden Pastora (Contra leader in Nicaragua in the 1980s) is imho intellectually disingenuous and should not be called whataboutism. If we could hash out some sort of accepted compromise wording that reflects that, I think it would greatly improve this article and this is - after all - what we are here for, isn't it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Avenger's VBing is re-instated. ChrisAmiss, who paroled him, wasn't aware of the discussions on my and Paravant's talk pages. Paravant and I both agree to these actions and apparently so does Sorte Slyngle (discussion on my talk page).---Mona- (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's more fun to keep them around for intellectual's sake. At least, when it comes to their apologetics, I enjoy debunking them as a sort of game. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * vandal bin isn't blocking. They can still be aRound--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, you are a veritable font of knowledge and if only I was in a position to give you orders (said with smiling smirk) I'd want you devoting yourself to the sections of the Zionism article that still need attention. Not casting your pearls before these, uh, users. ;) ---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right -- every 30 minutes they can be active here. It just slows down and impedes their ability to disrupt articles.---Mona- (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I may have forgotten >_< Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And *I* think you didn't post that in the right spot. :) ---Mona- (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yikes. This is going absolutely splendid. >_< :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disingenuous accusations of whataboutism
Can we at least agree that they exist and should be mentioned - or at least alluded to - in the article? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of this? Like a news items, weblog page, or somesuch. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything Mona, Chriss, Paravant or Fake-BoN write about whataboutism?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * -Insert reverse opinion here- --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)The fact that Paravant does not even significantly respond shows that Arisboch is right. As they say in my home-town: "Dogs who are hit bark" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then insert it, you lazy bum!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I do not respond seriously because the comment I respond to is inane and undeserving of a serious response.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arisboch: Per the FR, I contributed nothing to the whataboutism article, and neither did Chris or Paravant. (The latter reverted something once under a different name.) I did, however, revert the bullshit Avenger just tried to insert so that the article would not apply to his and your committing the fallacy. Which is to say, you both dislike an article written by people having nothing to do with the Zionism wars purely because it is properly cited against you.---Mona- (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In brief: "Reference a (notable) example you're not part of or GTFO". Pages are not here to fight your battles; Mona, Chriss, Paravant or Fake-BoN usage of whataboutism may very well be disingenuous, but that doesn't mean there's a place for it here. Otherwise we should start editing all the fallacy articles every time someone uses it. This is obviously not the point of these pages. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in addition Whataboutism usually referes to Soviet propagandists. Not to general tu quoque usage. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Did Avenger or Arisboch put the WP article up for deletion? "I myself discovered this article when it was linked in political discussion where one of the sides was accused of whataboutism" Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be the case that popular invocation of whataboutism began in application to the Soviets, but I see it all over online applied to Zionists, as just happened here and will again -- whataboutery is what they do. It was at the Guardian I first encountered the term, except they call it "whataboutery" (so do I). And it is usually lobbed at defenders of Israel over there as it is on Twitter.---Mona- (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, I'm not going to do it now because it would just cause a shitfest over this article, but at some point I'm going to add Zionists to the examples of whataboutism. One can find myriad instances of it being applied to them. Here's HuffPoUK:

According to the likes of Ben-Ami, there are much more vile regimes, and more violent groups, elsewhere in the world. Why pick on plucky Israel? What about the Chinas, Russias, Syrias, Saudi Arabias, Irans, Sudans and Burmas? Where are the protests against Isis, Boko Haram or the Pakistani Taliban?

There are various possible responses to such attempts at deflection. First, does Israel really want to be held to the standards of the world's worst countries? Doesn't Israel claim to be a liberal democracy, the "only" one in the Middle East?

Second, isn't this "whataboutery" of the worst sort?

A pro-Israel pundit at The Telegraph wrote a column titled "The one piece of 'whataboutery' that Israel-bashers have no answer to." (The answer is easy.) The examples are legion. So, at some point I'll make the indicated edit.---Mona- (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They have a rather hard time justifying their singling out of Israel, so they use the term "whatabout(ism|ery)" to deflect criticism of that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well what would be the result if people who see every splinter in Israel's eye were to see the forest in the eye of Saudi Arabia and Iran... But thaen again, Jesus was a noted whataboutist... And also an eeeeeeeeevvvviiiilllll Zionist occupier (he was a Jew and he lived in Israel, hence...) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The amusing thing is your repeated refusal to look at anything we say.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arisboch, no hard time at all. See my User page and click the first embedded link to the HuffPoUK post re: the reason Westerners in general are properly and greatly concerned with the crimes of Israel. In one word: complicity.---Mona- (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Complicity? You mean buying oil from the Arabs and Iranians, who then go and fund terrorists?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Complicity? you mean giving Israel a blank check to do whatever it wanted?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A blank check? That'd be nice indeed.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Only an idiot can call Obama's policy vis-a-vis Israel a "blank check". And well every time you put gas into your car you fund the Saudis and hence a bit more terrorism. And sadly enough the boycott and sanctions against Iran are only a shadow of their former self. Thanks in part to Austrian and German companies (this is such an open secret that even once had a storyline about it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In the continuing saga of Avengers' manifest idiocy, Obama softened the horrible blow of the Iran nuke deal by offering Netanyahu yet more bombs 'n stuff. CBS:

WASHINGTON -- Published reports say President Obama tried to soften the blow of the Iran nuclear deal for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by offering new U.S. military aid to the Jewish state, but a senior Obama administration official denied a specific package is on the table.

Citing anonymous sources, the newspaper reports assert that in a phone call with Netanyahu, Mr. Obama proposed to bolster the Israeli Defense Force with increased military aid. Complicity.---Mona- (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) ---Mona- (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of how Bush Senior bribed Israel into not kicking Saddam's ass for firing rockets at them to hold his anti-Saddam-alliance together. Hope it'll go over well.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the only President who has had a policy on Israel has been Obama.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait didn't you say in some other place that Hamas' charter does not matter (even though it is still their official document with equivalent value to a constitution and was never revoked) because it was written so long ago. Thaen you go around and say Obama's policies may be one thing, but the US presidents in the past...

The fuck?

Seriously: How stupid do you think people are? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Never said half of what you said I said love. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries. No, not a blank cheque. Scream!! (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So after digging for some brains, you actually found them. Mazal tov.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 'kinell - don't you recognise sarcasm when it's shovelled on? Oh yes: thanks for the ad hom. Scream!! (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, I ignore sarcasm.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When the U.S. wishes to show Israel how much it is "troubled" by annihilating Gaza or new settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank, it punishes Israel with a couple new F-16s. (COMPLICITY.)---Mona- (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaza is still there (cause they're messing with Israel and not with Russia, China or Jordan).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "present participle: A verb form that indicates an ongoing action or state in the present" 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Grammar Nazi Icon Text.svg--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing the subject to something else is not a legitimate argument and is a fallacy. We call it a red herring. If every-time you criticize a country or a religion and someone asks why aren't you giving equal time to other countries/religions, it serves as a deterrent when criticizing said country or religion. And so it ends up that we can't criticize something in earnest without a prerequisite of focusing our criticisms on other subjects. That is a problem and it's not something we should endorse. I've been asked why I focus on Israel-Palestine, but the simple fact is I've done extensive reading on the conflict, so I am in a place to educate people about the historical facts surrounding it and debunk any psuedohistory (which is part of our mission after all I believe). Being knowledgeable about something and focusing your energy on it doesn't make you a bigot. Some people are interested in certain conflicts compared to others. Would focusing on Saudi Arabia and its conduct on Yemen make me bigoted because I don't focus on the conduct of say Assad in Syria? Would dwelling on America's past history of slavery make me a bigot because I don't focus on its current achievements in civil rights? No it wouldn't, and we really need to put these ad hominem accusations to rest. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, if all Arisboch has is pedantic bullshit about the use of the term "annihilating" then the facts are clear -- he just doesn't like them so wants to talk about grammar. Let him. It will convince no one.---Mona- (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fake-BoN is getting his panties in a bunch about grammar, not me.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I only kindly explained what a present participle was, since apparently you didn't know. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Zionism does that to even the best minds. They suddenly find great value in fallacies and non-issues about grammar. Any hand-waving will do to deflect from the unpleasant facts.---Mona- (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So now I'm diagnosed with the new false consciousness, huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing so exotic. It's just ethno-religious nationalism. People can adhere to nationalism as others do to a religion (nationalism can be a civil religion), and behave with the same hostility to facts, reason and logic.---Mona- (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Zionism is the natural and necessary reaction of Jews to a world that wants to murder them. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fallacious to suggest whataboutism only applies to Russia
Unless you're suggesting that only Russians are biologically wired to commit the fallacy while Westerners are not. Fact remains that tit-for-tat accusations against "opponent" countries had existed before the Soviet Union, and will continue to exist. Furthermore, the US does not attack Russia because it has genuine interests in their human rights, but such attacks afford their greater diplomatic leverage.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is about a neologism, which is almost always applied to Russia, and is just a different way of phrasing the tu quoque and/or not as bad as fallacies. When I created this page over a year ago I couldn't find any references to this term being applied elsewhere. Now, it's certainly possible I missed something, or that things have changed in the last year and a half (As Mona has suggested), but so far no one has provided decent examples of such usage. Please, find some examples and edit the page! Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I am mostly a reader and haven't payed any attention to the arguments, but I thought this article kind of conflates "whataboutism" with "and you are lynching negroes", the latter being a joke statement about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and the former was coined in Jan 2008, long after the Cold War was over. Furthermore I felt that the examples (being added and removed) are pretty weird, especially seeing the statement about "NK and China also favors this tactic" (with little reference), but the bit about Islamism was removed. I guess maybe the article would do a bit better with some exploration of the origins of the term from the Economist article, where it did mention that this fallacy, by other names, is applicable to every government, but the Russians tend to overuse it, and the reasons behind its resurgence. Or explore cases where the example specifically references whataboutism eg this article about Azerbaijan vs US .--137.111.13.200 (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article discussion the Ferguson riots and its effects on "whataboutism".--137.111.13.200 (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll give this page some love later, incorporating your comments as well as the previous discussions, unless someone else does it first. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope this does not devolve into another flame war... Mona threw a tantrum for me even suggesting that accusations of whataboutism can be fallacious in and by themselves... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to cause shit.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to cause shit. I am trying to advise someone which aspects tend to be controversial, based on experience... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona had yet to comment at at all and thus your comment will have no effect but to cause shit. Do not cause shit. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 85% of the time I ignore Avenger, and will do so here as well. Others on this page already saw his inane, reverted (not by me) edits trying to make the whataboutery definition inapplicable to him/Zionists. I feel no need to "defend myself" in a situation where folks have significant experience of Avenger.---Mona- (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice way of inverting facts, I did not mention Zionism or Israel at all in the edit in question. All I did was dare to suggest that not every time someone says "whataboutism" that someone is right. But you will probably ignore this as well, as you do every time you feel it to be convenient to you or your "cause". Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Carpetsmoker, I don't want to be the one to introduce Zionist whataboutery in this article, but it is true that whataboutery (the British term for the same phenomenon that I picked up at the Guardian), is heavily resorted to by Zionists. That's been noted even by conservative Israel supporters, and by less wingnut Israel defenders, including here ("'Whataboutery' is always a disreputable way of distracting attention. Those who look at Gaza and say: 'But what about Syria, Iran or Kurdistan?' are as bad as those who looked at Saddam's Iraq and said: 'But what about Burma, Congo or North Korea?'") These are pro-Israel writers acknowledging the frequent accusation; I could provide scads of pro-Palestinian writers making the charge with examples from Zionists. Certainly I've encounter it from virtually every Zionist I've engaged online, and that has been many -- including Avenger who sought to edit the article to render it impotent to be used against him. Anyway, I'll leave it to you whether this current, common Zionist resort to the fallacy merits inclusion.---Mona- (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links ;-) I'll expand the page later tonight. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After 3 months I kinda figured I'd take care of it myself. ;)---Mona- (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)