I typically see folks in debates on-line accuse different folks of enjoying “Whataboutism.”
Right here’s an ordinary definition:
Whataboutism is a pejorative for the technique of responding to an accusation with a counteraccusation as a substitute of a protection in opposition to the unique accusation.
That raises two points.
First, is whataboutism ever an affordable option to argue?
Second, what’s a great way to reply when somebody makes use of the “whataboutism” technique to deflect?
My reply to the primary query is sure. It’s typically an affordable option to argue.
I’ll reply the second query by referring to a dialogue I used to be in on Fb at this time.
I had stated good issues on FB about Senator Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Senator from Maryland. I assumed he did an excellent job down in El Salvador, in a 3-minute video (right here’s the 24-minute model), of creating the case for the return of one in every of his constituents, Abrego Garcia, whom the Trump administration admits was mistakenly taken to a jail in El Salvador. Van Hollen made just one error: he said that Abrego Garcia is harmless regardless that he doesn’t know that. The secret’s not that he’s harmless. The secret’s that he was by no means given a listening to. The one option to discover out is to offer him a listening to again in america at which he can have a lawyer current.
In all probability due to FB’s algorithm, up popped a threaded dialogue initiated by a lawyer buddy named Matt Gilliland. Matt stated that Trump is defying the Supreme Courtroom of america, which instructed him, in a 9-0 resolution, to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.
A buddy of Matt’s named Will said:
Wow, a president defying the SC – why I haven’t seen that since … JOE BIDEN on scholar loans bragging about it.
Matt replied:
So I believe that Biden’s scholar mortgage shenanigans have been typically outdoors of his limits, however Biden didn’t truly defy the Supreme Courtroom. When he acquired shut down as a result of the tactic he used was dominated invalid, he tried a special authorized technique. That’s not defying the Supreme Courtroom — it’s following their choices. Are you able to level to an instance the place he truly defied their resolution?
The dialog went backwards and forwards.
Will was partaking in whataboutism. Was that an invalid option to argue? I don’t assume so. Matt’s response was that Biden hadn’t defied the Supreme Courtroom. (By the best way, in an look in, I believe Los Angeles, Biden got here awfully near bragging that he had.)
The issue is that in elevating the problem of Biden, Will manages to keep away from discussing whether or not what Trump did was illegitimate.
So I requested the plain query. I wrote to Will:
And when Biden did that, you have been in opposition to it, proper?
Will didn’t reply.
I believe my query of Will was a great way to go. As soon as he admitted that he was in opposition to Biden defying the Supreme Courtroom (he thought Biden was; I, like Matt, thought he didn’t, however I additionally thought Biden got here perilously shut) then we may get to the problem of whether or not Trump’s actions constituted defiance of the Supreme Courtroom. We by no means acquired there as a result of, not less than to this point, Will hasn’t replied.
However the best way I responded is a legit means to answer whataboutism, whether or not or not whataboutism is justified, however particularly if whataboutism is justified.
One ultimate query about Trump and Biden. The Supreme Courtroom has seconded a decrease courtroom resolution requiring Trump to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to america. Why, after the Supreme Courtroom discovered Biden’s forgiving of scholar loans unconstitutional, did it not require him to undo that forgiveness? Biden wouldn’t have even needed to get folks to ship checks that had been despatched to them. All he would have needed to is inform them that their loans weren’t forgiven.
