 |
| KellyAnne Conway: the poster child for Whataboutism. |
It especially happens when speaking to ardent Trump supporters. If someone says, "President Trump said XYZ", then the supporter won't necessarily disavow Trump said it; however they will respond with "Well, what about when Hillary Clinton did ABC!" Then the discussion devolves into people defending their own side instead of talking about the central issue. I've seen it on TV time and time again and it's exhausting because you're not getting any real insight into what's supposed to be discussed.
Can We Agree To Disagree?
I recently learned about the difference between having a "debate" and a "dialectic". A "debate" is an argument in which two parties are trying to "win" by having the other person conceded they are "right". A "dialectic" is a discussion to parties are having where they mutually agree to find a unifying truth between them. It feels like in America we're more concerned about winning than finding the truth.
What About A Debate?
Whataboutism is a tactic deployed when you are going to lose an argument in debate. For example:
Person 1: "You killed your dog with your car. I saw you do it."
Person 2:"What about the millions of pets left in hot vehicles with the windows rolled up.? I don't see you caring about those. So, why do you care about this?"
Person 1:"Because you left the carcass on my lawn and sped off."
Person 2:"Millions of carcass-i are left on the road. You're spending tax dollars on their removal and it ain't happening. You should take it up with the city!"
Person 1:"What are you going to do about the one you left on my lawn?"
Person 2:"What about the time you left your rake on my lawn??? You never came by to pick it up and I had to remove it. I still have it on my garage. I suggest you do the same."
Person 1:"That wasn't my rake..."
Person 2:"You don't know that!"
...
I could go on and on with this but I'm getting angry at Person 2 already even though I'm writing the dialog! This debate will never get anywhere because Person 2 refuses to accept responsibility for their side of the argument. Until they do, they are basically just taking potshots on the assertion Person 1 has made and wasting time. Hence, this is why a person who's weak in supporting their position uses it - they can "win" the argument by not really arguing about the original subject at all; it'll allow them to keep their argument intact while allowing them to attack their opponent's viewpoint.
Delectable Dialectics
I much more prefer a dialectic. Let's revisit the scenario above:
Person 1: "You killed your dog with your car. I saw you do it."
Person 2: "I disagree. I released my dog's soul from its body."
Person 1:"Well, your dog's body's on my front lawn. Can you remove it?"
Person 2:"Yes. After the proper period of mourning has been observed."
Person 1:"How about...right now?"
Person 2:"OK. Sure."
The central truth that Person 2 killed their dog was achieved. The manner in which the dog died is up for debate a bit. They can keep their viewpoints, still have a disagreement but achieve a truth between them.
What Do Now?
If someone engages you in whataboutism, point it out to them. Instead frame the ground rules for which you'd be willing to discuss the matter with them further (mainly "You can't bring in unrelated facts/opinions into the argument"). If they refuse the ground rules, walk away. You won't get anywhere with anyone who engages in whataboutism. They don't respect you enough to listen to your viewpoints and care much more about winning an argument than having a healthy discussion.
