There are few people more insufferable than people who screech"logical fallacy!" because they think it’s a viable strategy
They’re not even using it right! The tu quoque fallacy is when you discredit a logical argument based on the opponent’s hypocrisy. Stuff like “you say smoking is bad, but you smoke, therefore you’re wrong and it’s not bad”. It’s a fallacy because your opponent being a hypocrite doesn’t mean their conclusion is incorrect. But when people do “whataboutism” they’re not implying Russia, China, Venezuela, etc. haven’t done anything wrong, they’re criticizing an unjustified double standard that lets the US and its allies act like a moral authority on human rights while getting away with similar or even worse violations.
There are genuine cases when you could call out “whataboutism”, like when an Axis sympathizer tries to bring up muh Dresden and muh rape of Berlin. Because in that case, the person is trying to draw a false equivalence between the side that started a war of extermination versus the side that didn’t.
:wojak-nooo: Noooo! You can’t point out capitalism’s contradictions and blatant hypocrisy! That’s a logical fallacy!
:chad-stalin: “At least we don’t lynch black people” goes brrrrr
On a side note, it’s pretty rich coming from the crowd that likes to repeat “at least we didn’t keep people in with a wall!” Nonstop.
Tu quoque, active period: cold war to present. If it started in the cold war, how did the Romans know to make a term for it?
Also, anyone notice whataboutism is the geopolitical version of clean your room?
“pot calling the kettle black” = good
“don’t throw stones in a glass house” = good
“whataboutism” = bad, somehow
