Whataboutism

Whataboutism, also called whataboutery, is a rhetorical ploy believed to have originated in the Cold War era, often used by Soviet propagandists. It seeks to discredit another person's argument without actually or directly refuting it by using moral equivalence arguments to accuse the other person of doing either the same thing or something that is allegedly equally bad. It is a form of the tu quoque fallacy and is now frequently used by liberals/leftists and their allies to deflect from the atrocities committed by such ideologies as Communism and Islam, as well as totalitarian regimes like the USSR, Communist China, North Korea and Iran, while simultaneously attacking Christianity as well as the United States and its allies.

## Examples[edit]

The classic example of a whataboutism is when Americans criticized Soviet massacres, gulags, and forced deportations. Soviet apologists would often respond with:

'What about when you guys had racism, slavery, and lynchings?'

As true is it may be, a history of atrocity on one side of the discussion doesn't justify a current atrocity being committed by the other.

Another common whataboutism occurs in the context of abortion. When arguing for the sanctity of human life leftists often respond with:

'What about after the child is born? If you were really pro-life, then wouldn't you stand behind socialized government programs?'

Of course, at no point following birth is it legal to terminate an innocent human life, and even if it were, it wouldn't justify the leftist view that the unborn should receive no legal protections; it would merely mean that legal protections would need to be implemented to protect both classes of individuals. Those who consider themselves pro-life argue for a negative right to life. I.e., it is not the responsibility of others to provide you with life, but it is the responsibility of the state to protect the lives of all innocents. Socialism argues a positive right to material goods and services, to which it has historically demonstrated a failure to secure said goods and services, and also to protect the individual's right to life.

In more recent years, as transgender activists have encroached on women's rights such as by allowing men into women's restrooms and locker rooms, or by allowing men to compete in women's sports, conservative criticism is sometimes met by:

'Well, what about when you guys spent all these decades trying to block and repeal the advancement of women's rights?'

One could argue that the premise is false, but a much simpler response is to point out that even if it were true that one side of the aisle has infringed on women's rights in the past, that fails to justify the other side of the aisle infringing on women's rights in the present.