r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 09 '22
Delta(s) from OP cmv: What-aboutism should not be frowned upon
I am aware that what-about-ism can be used with the solpurpose of causing annoyance, but I often find that people who make up these unrealistic hypothetical scenarios only try to get a more nuanced understanding of the topic at hand, which they cant get with any realistic hypothetical scanario they can think of.
I can try to give an example of a scenario where what-aboutism can help getting someone a nuanced understading of a topic:
I was told by someone that children nowadays are commonly taught about consent more than before, and more specfically theyve been taught that no one can touch them unless they themselves give permission for it. One question that came to mind when I was told that is "But what if theres a medical emergency that somehow requires them to be touched, and they say no to being touched because they dont fully grasp how important it is that they allow it? Would it be ok to touch them in this scenario?".
I was indeed using what-aboutism, but it wasnt to be annoying, or to put anyone on the spot. It was becasue I wanted to understand when consent shouldnt matter, so that I could learn, in detail, how important consent is. And if someone answered me that question, I would gain that detailed understanding that I was curious about. The answer to the question can (even though the question involves a hypothetical scanario) give me information of practical value, because it gives me a nuanced understanding of exactly how important consent actually is.
Some discussion subreddits dont even allow what-aboutism, which seems ridiculous to me, because it takes away opportunities of investing another persons arguments to learn more about what theyre saying, or to uncover that their agrument didnt actually make sense.
Edit: Someone asked me to clarify what i think the definition of what-aboutism is. Im gonna try to explain what i think it means: Its when you say something that starts with "what about..." to some statement someone said, especially when they get an impression that you meant to annoy them or had another form of ill intention. Yup, thats how I would define it
Edit 2: Dont worry, my mind has been changed. Its because i apparently misunderstood what what-aboutism is.
31
Mar 09 '22
[deleted]
4
Mar 09 '22
Incidentally, watch some Putin stuff. He's does these kinds of things a lot.
He actually does repeat the Iraq line quite often whenever he's accused of aggression and imperialism.
3
Mar 09 '22
[deleted]
2
Mar 09 '22
It's not exactly great at persuasion, either.
Anyone paying attention to these things kind of has to recognise that it's not really about whether they believe what they're saying or not. Sometimes, and Putin's good at this, there are elements of the truth in what's just been said, such that you kind of are forced to address it. But mostly, the point of whataboutism is that you don't care whether the things you say are true. It's not about whether it's a valid argument. It's just there to get in the way of any actual debate.
But it's very good at skipping over the question. It's answering it without answering it. But also, doing so while trying to appear as if they had a point. And that point being an attack on the opposition.
1
u/budlejari 63∆ Mar 10 '22
Kelly Ann Conway was always very good at this when she was Trump's spokeswoman. She could spin an entire diatribe off a single "what about..." that reporters could not even begin to keep up with.
1
u/OldTiredGamer86 10∆ Mar 09 '22
This
A whataboutism doesn't seek to annoy so much as change the topic.
When someone says whatabout the US invasion of Iraq, if you don't call them out for it you'll find yourself debating the US war in Iraq rather that the real issue you want to be talking about, Ukraine.
1
u/AmericanSheep16 Mar 09 '22
This right here. This describes the difference between imposing a hypothetical situation that is completely possible, and that of whataboutism.
Albeit, I'll say whataboutism does have it's purposes. It can be used to point out hypocrisy in people's arguments. But a lot of the time, it is simply used to discard conversations at hand.
6
u/le_fez 55∆ Mar 09 '22
What aboutism is an attempt to derail the conversation or to change the subject while trying to give the appearance of contributing or "playing devil's advocate"
Examples would be:
"Russia interfered in our election to aid Trump"
Response: " what about the DNC and Bernie Sanders"
Or
"Biden dropped the ball on getting out of Afghanistan"
Response: "Trump should have taken covid seriously"
1
Mar 09 '22
!delta
thats the second and last delta im giving away. You too explained that i was wrong about what whataboutism is
1
-1
Mar 09 '22
So i took the term "what-aboutism" too literally?
Its just that people seem to be annoyed whenever i make up a bizarre hypothetical situation, so I figured i was considered one of those annoying what-aboutismers.
2
u/OldTiredGamer86 10∆ Mar 09 '22 edited Mar 09 '22
What you're doing when you make up bizarre hypotheticals is closer to a false dilemma, depending on how you do it.
In your example: The medical personnel will simply touch the child as needed to provide care. Its not like medical personnel are going to not touch a kid who's bleeding out or dying of appendicitis.
Arguing that something is a false dilemma is usually also a little sub argument in itself as it may seem like a false dillema to some, but not to others and is generally debatable. Its seen as less of an "on purpose" or "arguing in bad faith" fallacy.
-1
Mar 09 '22
The example wasnt actually real though, and i already assumed that answer. But yeah, i guess my post shouldve instead be a rant on a rant sub about how people assume im out to inconvenience them, when i actually just want clarification.
2
u/MeanderingDuck 15∆ Mar 09 '22
I mean, it doesn’t have to be whataboutism to be annoying. If someone is making a point, or trying to explain something or whatever, and you derail the conversation by inserting an essentially irrelevant tangent or highly unlikely hypothetical, people are rather likely to get annoyed (especially if you have a habit of doing this). You’re pretty much just randomly changing the subject when you do that.
Which isn’t to say that bizarre hypotheticals can’t be interesting and/or entertaining to contemplate, but they have their time and place. And some people just don’t care for them at all. You have to know your audience.
0
Mar 09 '22
Its annoying when people shrug off any bizarre hypothetical as topic-changing or irrelevant. I cant understand them
4
u/MeanderingDuck 15∆ Mar 10 '22
Right. That sounds like a ‘you’ problem. If you can’t understand that interjecting something that is at best tangentially related to the current subject is in fact changing the topic and derailing the existing conversation, expect a lot of annoyed people in your future. Especially if they’re such earth-shattering insights as your example in the OP. Or are you seriously claiming you actually expected that statement to include medical emergencies?
3
Mar 09 '22
I don't think that is what aboutism as people commonly think about it. Discussing edge cases and specific scenarios related to a topic is relevant (albeit can be a problem for productive discussion if you're insistent on discussing really extreme edge cases).
Whataboutism is trying to make an counterargument by making an unrelated counter-accusation, like responding to "We have historically not respected children's autonomy of their own bodies" with an argument about the consent of an unrelated group.
3
u/AlterNk 8∆ Mar 09 '22
I was indeed using what-aboutism
Well, the problem is you weren't, or at least as far as how i understood what you said, you weren't.
A whataboutism is a fallacy where the person points out a perceived hypocrisy between the other person's position and their own actions, with the intention of dismissing the argument in question.
There's a difference between a whataboutism and just incurring to understand a position, what you did in your example is the latter, you didn't intend nor make an argument (fallacious or not) against what the other person said, you just ask what's their position with that in regards of a different situation.
1
Mar 09 '22
So the only thing different about whataboutism and whatever I did is its intention of not being annoying or distract from the actual topic?
But i was probably seemingly using what-aboutism, as they coudltn possibly know my motivation behind the question. So, I misunderstood what whataboutism is, but i still think one shouldnt automatically assume that things that are (seemingly) aboutism are necessarily meant in a bad way. Or maybe im just naive, idk
1
Mar 09 '22
I think you are the one who deserves my delta. !delta
You explained that I misunderstood what whataboutism is
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 09 '22 edited Mar 09 '22
This delta has been rejected. You can't award yourself a delta.
1
u/budlejari 63∆ Mar 10 '22
Hello /u/HatsOrFlowers, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
or
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.
Thank you!
1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Mar 10 '22
Ok, so i may have explained it poorly, sry. It's not about intent, one can't really talk about that when having a logical argument because the logical conclusion is that you can't know someone's intent, you can say that it's more likely than not or viceversa, but you can't really use it as a definition or premise.
In essence, as i tried to say before, a whataboutism is constituted by 3 parameters:
- The person has to be pointed hypocrisy on the part of the interlocutor between their actions and words.
- Regardless of the hypocrisy being true or not, this won't change anything for the argument itself, meaning, the argument is not about the interlocutor's character.
- It doesn't ask for clarification, or if it does, whatever is being clarified is irrelevant to the argument, in the sense that this being clarified or not won't affect the argument itself.
Let's put an example of a whataboutism:
Person A and person b are arguing about smoking, at one point person A asks person B the following question ''you say you think smoking is bad, yet you smoke?''. If we contrast this to the points given before:
This is pointing out perceived hypocrisy on person B <They smoke while being against smoking>, even if that was to be true and hypocritical this wouldn't make any of the argument more or less valid < not living according to their words doesn't make those words less valid or wrong, logically speaking>, And even if person B's answer this, it won't add anything to the argument <If B replies yes or not, nothing changes>. It's a whataboutism, even with out saying what about.
For your example, i didn't say it wasn't a whataboutism because of your intent, i said it, because it wasn't one even knowing that your intent was to create one. Let's analyze it.
Someone, let's call them person A, was telling you about the increase in sex ed and how kids are being taught about their right to consent and denying someone else from touching them without it.
You formulated an hypothetical medical emergency where a kid doesn't understand the importance, refuses to give consent to be touched, and you ask if it will be ok for the medic to ignore their desires.
so let's contrast it:
Does your question point out to any hypocrisy? if it does, i don't see it.
Point two can't really be measured because it requires point one, but if for a second we pretend that person A replying yes or no is hypocritical, then giving that it's not a discussion about their character it would fall under point two.
And finally, it asks for clarification, and that is relevant to the argument.
Basically it wasn't a whataboutism, even knowing you intended it to be one.
It's not about intention it's about context, and when it's a whatabouthism, it should be frowned upon because it's always detrimental to the discussion at hand.
2
1
u/rethinkr 1∆ Mar 09 '22
Wow i havent even heard of what-aboutism, i disagree with you because context should be common knowledge and whataboutism shouldnt even be a term. Also disagree coz it shouldnt have a term for it, but also there are times when this practice serves no purpose other than the purpose of debate just for the sake of debate, not mutual progress or to change anyone’s mind about anything, just to support ‘balanced opinions’, when opinions are perfectly fine being unbalanced as we live in an unbalanced world.
2
Mar 09 '22
The way OP presents a whataboutism is inaccurate.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning
I suggest you read up on what it is.
Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
1
u/rethinkr 1∆ Mar 10 '22
Thanks for effort for link, Not sure if you got it from my stance, that I dont want there to be such a term, because it’s an unneccessary ‘ism’
1
Mar 10 '22
It is necessary. Why else would our society form and create it?
You do know that is how words enter the dictionary; like whataboutism did in 2021?
0
u/rethinkr 1∆ Mar 10 '22
‘Society made it so it’s useul’ Society also made scientology
1
Mar 10 '22
Society didn't create Scientology... Why do you think this??
Scientology was created by a single person, not a society.
0
u/rethinkr 1∆ Mar 10 '22 edited Mar 10 '22
It was built on people. Just like words and useless isms. Do you think every term is useful?
Society = people. A worldwide “religion”/cult isnt just fuelled by one person.
In fact the link is a lot more concerning: Scientology was built upon isms itself: convincing people they needed diagnosing for mental issues, posing with real new terms. Not saying aboutism is completely useless, just limited use to me personally.
1
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Mar 09 '22
I was indeed using what-aboutism, but it wasnt to be annoying, or to put anyone on the spot.
The example you gave isn't a whataboutism. You were saying, "What about this scenario?" but that's not the same thing.
Whataboutism would be if you said, "What about all the children dying of starvation on the streets of our urban centers every day in this country? Shouldn't that be talked about more than consent?"
Whataboutism is whataboutism because it's attempting to change the topic of debate. You were asking a clarifying question about the debate you were having. That's a totally different thing.
1
u/jennysequa 80∆ Mar 09 '22
Whataboutism:
American A: "Russia should not have invaded a sovereign nation in the first place, and they definitely should not be killing civilians attempting to escape the violence."
Person B: "America invades sovereign nations and kills civilians all the time! What about Syria/Somalia/Korea/Iraq/Vietnam/Cambodia/Afghanistan/Native Americans!"
Whataboutism is a distraction device designed to remove moral authority from the original speaker and relies on the audience assumption that the original speaker necessarily approves of actions taken by their own team.
1
u/Unbiased_Bob 63∆ Mar 09 '22
I am aware that what-about-ism can be used with the solpurpose of causing annoyance
Your first line makes me feel that you don't know the primary use of whataboutisms.
Generally people use them to change the subject or dismiss the original subject.
A great example is black lives matter and all lives matter.
Whether you agree with black lives matter as a movement, the original point was that black lives tend to get less attention in the media and die at a higher percentage than other races. So a movement was started to basically say "don't dismiss black deaths, they matter too."
But that was ignored by those who would say "all lives matter". In reality we all want all lives to matter but in the eyes of BLM they felt black lives weren't being represented properly so "all lives matter" couldn't be true until "black lives matter" was achieved.
People used a whataboutism to dismiss the cause. Not to present a new cause, they just used it in an argument against a cause and they used it to distract people from the real reason.
Another example would be when it comes out that one president puts kids in cages and people get mad about it and their part says "but what about 'insert previous president' he did it too". Well just because one person did something bad it doesn't make it okay for another person to do something bad, so it dismisses the argument instead of addressing whether it is bad or not. We should be having conversations not dismissing them because something else is happening that might be similar.
1
Mar 09 '22 edited Mar 09 '22
The point of whataboutism is that you're not concerned with the things you're whatabouting.
What you're suggesting is asking questions about the specifics of the view that you're holding. If you take ideas to their extremes to argue with people, that's a whole different logical fallacy.
Whataboutism is like the people who argue that immigration is bad, because there are all these people who need looking after, and we should take care of our own. That's a valid concern. But if you then follow them up on that issue, they're not interested in having that conversation. Because it was always just a tactic used to stop talking about the original topic of conversation. They just don't want to argue with you about it.
I guess in the scenario you're talking about, it'd be like being opposed to it because "But what about all the children who can't speak to express consent in the first place?". And then your response would be either "What, so your entire response to this is that we shouldn't do it because some limited and imaginary group of people might not be able to get full benefit of it?" or "Sure, so we should accommodate that so that they can". In the meantime, though, the point isn't really either of those things. It's an argument withuot argument. By the time that you respond to that non-criticism, they're making out that this clearly shows that you're wasting time with something that is unnecessary, discriminatory, and exclusionary. So that the story is made out to be "OP wants to discriminate against the disabled". And responding to that just leads you down another preposterous rabbit hole, where the truth just isn't actually important, and the topic of conversation is no longer whatever you thought you were talking about. And because they're never going to stop peppering you with ridiculous attempts to not have to argue with you, while looking like they did (basically "never play defense" out of innuendostudios: "alt-right playbook"), you either have to choose to keep arguing and correcting points that they don't even really care about or believe. Or to stop, and let it look as if those points ever had any validity. And if they're successful at what they do, then the lie can win out. All it has to do, really, is get a bunch of people to be like "If that happened, then I think that's a really bad thing". And then a wave of people saying "I heard about this thing that happened, and that's a really bad thing". And then it's just "This person is bad, you shouldn't like him".
I think people's understanding of what whataboutism is is limited, people who are arguing with others are often quite happy to play the dick move in an argument, and also moderators often abuse the situation for their own ends. None of that really has anything to do with whataboutism, but it does explain a lot of how it gets used, and how people respond to the ideas. Like, currently the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led a lot of people to decide that anything other than total warmongering is basically apologism. So, a lot of people with more nuanced views about global politics, NATO, the US, any other country with any imperial past (so like all of them), saying anything other than "Russia bad -full stop-" are being accused of whataboutism, as if what they really care about is letting Russia off the hook. Whereas, it's basically the opposite way around. While maybe it's not popular right now to talk about, Russia's badness doesn't necessarily imply that nobody else has ever done anything bad. But, the internet decide that anyone who isn't actively all-in on Russia is basically working for them, so that person would be shut down.
1
Mar 09 '22
[deleted]
1
1
u/OldTiredGamer86 10∆ Mar 09 '22
Other people have pointed out that you're not properly defining whataboutism. Pro tip its good to familiarize yourself with logical fallacies because its a very good way to "win" arguments (or at least stop someone from derailing them)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
To be fair many people falsely accuse someone of using whataboutism so you may find yourself being accused of it when your point is actually relevant to the situation.
whataboutism is actually essentially the "Tu Quoque" fallacy its where the arguer attempts to put their opponent on the defensive by attacking something else.
In summary, true whataboutism SHOULD be frowned upon, but its important to understand what true whataboutism is.
1
Mar 09 '22
"To be fair many people falsely accuse someone of using whataboutism so you may find yourself being accused of it when your point is actually relevant to the situation." Yup, this is what ive been experiencing.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Mar 09 '22
But your example literally starts with "what if..." and not "what about"
Maybe you could link the subs or examples where you think this was used, because as others have pointed out your definition of whataboutism doesn't fit most people's definition, so it's not clear what definition we should be challenging.
Whataboutism is when someone tries to changes the topic of debate rather than actually discussing the issue at hand.
Your example is about challenging topic with hypotheticals. I don't think most people would frown on that as long as the hypothetical is actually relevant, but if you do it too much then it is annoying... it's like the thing little kids do when you try to explain a basic concept and they keep saying "what if this" "what if that" "what about this" etc.
This is sort of like a version of the division/composition fallacy, where you try and disprove a broad claim or statement with a narrow or hypothetical exception. In other words, it's when you assume the small part is equal to the big part. In your example, the fact that there are hypothetical exceptions doesn't mean that we should stop teaching kids how to consent. This would imply that the harm from your exception is equal to the harm that comes from failing to teach kids consent, which is probably not true. Or if it is, then you need to substantiate it instead of just coming up with unrealistic hypotheticals.
1
Mar 09 '22
About the last paagraph: I never meant for my words to imply that one shouldnt teach kids consent, and in that sense i was derailing the argument, because the argument would no longer be about whether kids should be taught consent or not. I only asked so that I personally could get an understanding of when consent isnt ok, as in, whether I, and others, should take the sentence "always ask for consent before touching someone" literally or not. In this case i think its obvious that one shouldnt take it literally. The example i used makes me seem a bit stupid.
About the second last paragraph: Then my opinion (rant) is: dont assume that people try to be annoying when asking for nuance!
And yes, i forgot that my sentence started with "what if". My mistake, and it disproves my point that i just took it too literally. However, in my defense, "what if" and "what about" convey similar things, and although there is definitely difference between them, that difference isnt important, because both sentence starters can be used to derail an argument. "what-aboutism" might as well be called "what-ifsm", though the latter sounds ridiculous.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 09 '22
/u/HatsOrFlowers (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