Defining whataboutism

Pinning down a useful definition to salvage this critique

I wrote a recent article where I attempted to draw a connection between Trump’s attempt to deport a non-citizen without trial and Obama and the Democrat’s willingness to drone bomb an actual citizen without trial. All of the critics were raising the same complaint about “whataboutism.” The intent was to show both abuses as civil-rights abuses and both parties as united in their brazen disregard. Far from distracting from the conversation of civil rights, I see the conversation as being bent to the narrative of opportunistic Democrats trying to regain power; Democrats that are demonstrably as uninterested in standing for those same rights.

In defense of my article, I attempted to dive into the allegation wherever it was raised but no one could provide me concrete answers as to why the article was in poor form: I clearly sided with Khalil in the article, and against Trump.

However self-serving, here I will attempt to create a definition,

The dictionary.com definition

Dictionary.com defines whataboutism as follows

a conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless:

But this raises a couple of core problems in my opinion, firstly

• Who decides whether or not they’re changing the subject, or staying on subject? Are all metaphors and similes indicative of whataboutism? Ultimately, I think “changing the subject” is too vague.

• “Implying that all criticism is invalid” is too specific. What if you acknowledge that things can be done better, but want to change the topic? Moreover, if this is the working definition, why was my article which affirmed the criticism entirely of Trump’s action called “whataboutism”?

As is often the case, I assume that the way people intend to use the term is different from the surface level definition provided by dictionary.com.

A working definition of whataboutism

For something more concrete, let’s try this: “whataboutism” is a critique of a work implying that its primary purpose is to distract or diminish from something else. For an allegation of whataboutism to be maintained, the target of whataboutism MUST

• Reject the core allegation

  For example, when Israelis responded to the allegation of genocide by pointing a finger at Syria and Assad, they’re obviously trying to distract or diminish. They reject the core allegation about Israel, and had it have not been for Syria they would still reject the core allegation. In this case, whataboutism allows the person making the argument to avoid addressing the core allegations.

• Reject the demands (remedial action)

  For example, when White Lives Matter raises the issue about white lives. They’re not even serious about saving white lives. Black Lives Matters has produced multiple proposals which would address the core grievances of the movement. White Lives Matter has produced no such work. There is no attempt to change the status quo. And there is a rejection of BLM’s agenda.

Implications of this new definition

What world does this create? Let’s address some hypotheticals uses of “whataboutism”

• If White Lives Matter accepted the problem with anti-black racism and racist policing and the solutions provided by BLM, they could raise an argument that they’re not committing “whataboutism” by attempting to make it more inclusive (in some way). I’m fine with that.

• If Israelis accepted that their state has always had policies of ethnic cleansing and has recently engaged in wanton genocide, and if they were on board to meaningfully address these problems they could raise an issue with a civil war in a neighboring country that has taken hundreds of thousands of lives. I’m fine with that.

Of course, White Lives Matter and Israel will neither accept the core issues raised by their opposition nor accept that the proposed solutions are improvements and so in these cases I find “whataboutism” to describe a very real type of response.

With this definition we have fairly reasonable criteria for raising the allegation of whataboutism: a “primary purpose is to distract or diminish.” And we’ve given the grounds on which to argue against whataboutism: agreement on the core allegation, and acceptance of the demands.