Hacker News Reader

Comment by 908087 | Hacker News Reader

Contrary to the belief of whataboutists everywhere, it is actually possible to be concerned about more than one thing at a time.

View on HN

I don't understand accusations of whataboutism. They oftentimes seem hypocritical: accusing someone of whataboutism is as relevant (and therefore, by its own logic, as rhetorically valid) as the thing it seeks to criticize.

Why is exposing double standards and hypocrisies via a relevant example not a valid form of argumentation?

Depends what it's trying to argue: is mentioning other instances of a problem a counter-argument meant to suggest the original isn't such a big problem that needs resolving, or is it an extension of it that pushes for those other problems also being addressed? The problem is the former.

Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic employing logical fallacy. It seeks to shut down discussion by creating an equivalence between two situations and implying that one is justified by not having gone after the other. It imposes a recursive loop of inaction where you can't change anything unless you change everything at the same time.

You want to fix Facebook; well, what about Google? You want to fix Google; what about Facebook?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

One can also legitimately bring up other examples to ask why they aren't being treated similarly without it being whataboutism in every case.

It sometimes can be difficult to distinguish when someone is using another example to excuse the primary subject with whataboutism or to make a sincere inquiry into why such a disparity exists.

Of course, sometimes it's easy to tell what people are doing.

It's worse than invalid, it's a cliché.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com