It is logical to identify as “whataboutism” criticism of “Western Powers” for actions unrelated to Ukraine in the context of a discussion about Ukraine, simply because the only thing about what’s being discussed in such a take is the saying bad things about the allies of one side.
Maybe it is whataboutism, or maybe that was not the intention of the person making that criticism in that context, but it’s logical to deem it so because it’s the explanation that makes most sense for a person making such a comment in such a context.
However such criticism is most definitelly warranted and makes sense in plenty of other contexts.
Also sometimes there really are no other contexts in which to point something out: as somebody has pointed out elsewhere under this post, in the West (including Lemmy, which seems to mainly have users from the “West”) there is quite a skewed and uneven coverage of the plight of Ukranians versus other plights right now in the World, and you hardly have a good context to talk about that when there are no discussions about that (it would be nice if we had some discussions about just how decayed Journalism in most of the Press is, which would lend itself to point such things out)
I don’t really agree with “whataboutism” because it can be applied to dismiss any inconvenient comparison and paint the one who raised it as a bad actor, even if it’s a valid point, without having to explain why it’s not a valid comparison. Comparing one thing with something else and noting the differences is a valid method of criticism.
Sure, merelly saying “whataboutism” is often used as you describe, mainly because like so many other words its meaning has been seriously mangled through misuse.
It does, however, make sense to ponder on the logic of pulling something wholly unrelated to the actual situation being discussed and posting it: since such “arguments” by association do not make sense in that context, it’s logical for those on the other side to then consider further elements seeking a reason until finding one that does make sense, which is typically an attempt at holding a position in a discussion after having exhausted actual logical arguments, something which itself would indiciate that the person using such “arguments” doesn’t really hold that position on logic.
You don’t need to label it as “whataboutism” to recognized an argument by association as the falacy it is, it’s just that using the word “whataboutism” is (or, maybe, used to be) a good shortcut instead of all the text above I just used to explain the rationalle behind the use of the argument by association falacy.
It is logical to identify as “whataboutism” criticism of “Western Powers” for actions unrelated to Ukraine in the context of a discussion about Ukraine, simply because the only thing about what’s being discussed in such a take is the saying bad things about the allies of one side.
Maybe it is whataboutism, or maybe that was not the intention of the person making that criticism in that context, but it’s logical to deem it so because it’s the explanation that makes most sense for a person making such a comment in such a context.
However such criticism is most definitelly warranted and makes sense in plenty of other contexts.
Also sometimes there really are no other contexts in which to point something out: as somebody has pointed out elsewhere under this post, in the West (including Lemmy, which seems to mainly have users from the “West”) there is quite a skewed and uneven coverage of the plight of Ukranians versus other plights right now in the World, and you hardly have a good context to talk about that when there are no discussions about that (it would be nice if we had some discussions about just how decayed Journalism in most of the Press is, which would lend itself to point such things out)
I don’t really agree with “whataboutism” because it can be applied to dismiss any inconvenient comparison and paint the one who raised it as a bad actor, even if it’s a valid point, without having to explain why it’s not a valid comparison. Comparing one thing with something else and noting the differences is a valid method of criticism.
Sure, merelly saying “whataboutism” is often used as you describe, mainly because like so many other words its meaning has been seriously mangled through misuse.
It does, however, make sense to ponder on the logic of pulling something wholly unrelated to the actual situation being discussed and posting it: since such “arguments” by association do not make sense in that context, it’s logical for those on the other side to then consider further elements seeking a reason until finding one that does make sense, which is typically an attempt at holding a position in a discussion after having exhausted actual logical arguments, something which itself would indiciate that the person using such “arguments” doesn’t really hold that position on logic.
You don’t need to label it as “whataboutism” to recognized an argument by association as the falacy it is, it’s just that using the word “whataboutism” is (or, maybe, used to be) a good shortcut instead of all the text above I just used to explain the rationalle behind the use of the argument by association falacy.