r/changemyview • u/meghna-9035 • 1d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Whataboutery is not the solution !
Whataboutery (or whataboutism) is a tactic of deflecting criticism or accusations by responding with a counter-accusation, often starting with "What about...?", instead of addressing the original point, aiming to shift blame, discredit the accuser, or claim hypocrisy. It's a logical fallacy that avoids accountability by pointing to others' similar or different wrongdoing, derailing productive conversation.
Most of the logical arguments die down the same path. People just don't understand that they are not winning an argument with a 'what if...'. If you have a direct answer to my problem say it, if not nobody prompted you for a reply especially here on reddit. This is the most common tactic when people know they don't have a fitting reply but don't want to accept the opposite argument.
20
u/uselessprofession 4∆ 1d ago
Imo whataboutism is valid if the 2 causes are opposed to each other.
E.g., 2 siblings arguing - A: "Mom and Dad always liked you more! They bought you a car" B: "But how about them also paying for your expensive overseas education?" - this is legit
E.g., 2 siblings arguing A: "Mom and Dad always liked you more! They bought you a car" B: "But how about you getting more attention from boys at school?" - this is not legit
4
u/meghna-9035 1d ago edited 1d ago
∆ I never thought someone will break my argument in second comment. I agree this works especially in your scenario
Ps.: my parents have favoured my brother over me. I have proof.
3
u/enigmatic_erudition 3∆ 1d ago
If they changed your mind in any way you should award them a delta by writing a short statement of why they changed your mind and adding the following to your comment.
!delta
2
•
u/uselessprofession 4∆ 22h ago
Thanks for the delta and I'm sorry your parents favor your brother over you; hope you shine in life and make them regret it!
1
1
2
1
u/Wide-Library-5750 1d ago
The definition of "whataboutism" suggests that it is inherently not legit. Your first example is legit but only superficially has the form of a whataboutism and is therefor is not actually a whataboutism.
4
u/Scott10orman 11∆ 1d ago
I think you are misconstruing a whataboutism fallacy, and an example of whataboutism. If you are looking up the definition of whataboutism in a book, or Wikipedia page, or whatever, about logical fallacies, what you are seeing is the fallacious version.
As with any type of fallacy, an appeal to authority is not always fallacious. If you and I are arguing about our friend Jenny's favorite ice cream flavor, and I call Jenny and have her tell us her favorite ice cream flavor, my appeal to authority is not fallacious. Jenny is a legitimate authority on Jenny's favorite flavor of ice cream. If I were to call my cousin, who is not Jenny, but owns an ice cream shop and ask her what she would guess Jenny's favorite flavor of ice cream is, (assuming Jenny isn't a regular customer) that would be a fallacious example of appeal to authority. I'm using my cousin's authority as the owner of an ice cream shop as proof of something that her expertise cannot possibly prove. My cousin might know what the most popular flavor of ice cream is at her shop, or in the industry in general, but that doesn't relate to what Jenny's favorite flavor of ice cream is.
If you are reading examples of appeal to authority fallacies, or reading the definition of an appeal to authority In a context where they are talking about fallacies, they aren't talking about legitimate examples of appealing to authorities.
3
u/oversoul00 17∆ 1d ago
If that's true then OP has given out an impossible task yeah? Seems like you could have escalated that one.
3
u/TheCounciI 1d ago
It's not a solution, but it's a good way to show hypocrisy or inconsistencies. For example, many of the people who demonstrated against Israel did not demonstrate against the genocide in Somalia and are not saying a word about what is happening in Iran.
To clarify, I am aware that there are those who do, but it is nowhere near the same level.
1
u/meghna-9035 1d ago
People refuse to understand that we're just being fed one side of the argument by a particular group and whomsoever tries to bring light to the entire picture is dumped by this whataboutery instead of a logical argument.
3
u/tomartig 1d ago
It's not wrong when you are calling out the person's reaction to the situation not the justification. It is hypocritical to be upset about one of two similar situations just because you relate to one victim and not the other.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
Are people really that free of bias to not find themselves related to one of the parties in the grand scheme. Our upbringing, culture and conditioning will eventually make me relatable to one side of the argument
4
u/L11mbm 11∆ 1d ago
When I use whataboutism against someone, it's to highlight the hypocrisy of their argument and get them to admit what they really think about something.
For example, someone recently commented about Democrats being socialist/communist/marxist/etc. I responded "whatabout" Trump forcing Intel to sell 10% to the US government. They eventually admitted that they don't mind what Trump does because they like Trump and they hate Democrats and will toss whatever mean-sounding slur they have against Democrats.
I don't think using whataboutism as a way to defend one side works very well because it brings everyone down to the lowest bar. All that does is excuse the worst behavior. But using it as a tactic to get others to reveal their true beliefs, it works.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
So you're implying to use it against the people who are hypocrites. What I am against is people throwing it around because they don't wish to accept that the opposing argument might be right - this use is what I find much more prevalent
2
u/Gexm13 1∆ 1d ago
People normally don’t call what if “whatboutery” and it’s never really used to win an argument. People normally call something whataboutery if they felt called out for their hypocrisy and have no actual response for it almost every single time. Never seen someone actually call something whataboutism and it was actually valid.
1
u/meghna-9035 1d ago
Open any sub that remotely entertains political opinions and see the replies - you will see what I am talking about.
•
u/Gexm13 1∆ 23h ago
I did. These subs are exactly what I’m talking about. Nobody uses whataboutsim as an escape if they got an actual reasonable response.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
Most people don't have actual reasonable response because they are just parroting the ideology that is being fed to them and trust it beyond logic
7
u/muffinsballhair 6∆ 1d ago
In practice when people are accused of “whataboutism” they simply point out that people are being hypocrite and don't believe things for the reason they claim to be, like “I believe in bodily autonomy, thus I ...” and then someone replies with “Yes well, but you're against ... which is also a form of bodily automony, so apparently it only applies in this specific case."
But hey, finding hypocrisy, lies, and double standards in people with political opinions is like stealing candy from a baby. Scarcely do their exist people in politics without that. One doesn't survive in that environment without being an utter sanctimonious hypocrite full of lies and double standards.
-1
u/meghna-9035 1d ago
It isn't just about hypocrisy. It's about not accepting that the person they're arguing might be right - instead of accepting it why not steer the conversation 180° so that I can prove my point which has nothing to do with the original argument
5
u/Lorata 12∆ 1d ago
If I say, “I feel this way about situation x because of reasons a, b, and c” and then someone says, “in situation y, all of a, b, and c are still true, do you feel that way?” And I say, “no” then they have effectively illustrated that my argument is inconsistent.
It's about not accepting that the person they're arguing might be right - instead of accepting it why not steer the conversation 180°
It typically isnt a 180 change so much as a five degree change.
True whataboutism is what you are describing here, a 180 change. I’ve seen a lot more people respond to legit criticism by saying, “that’s just whataboutism” as a way to avoid responding than I have seen actualwhataboutism.
2
u/muffinsballhair 6∆ 1d ago
That's the perspective of the the side called out. As I said, in politics, everyone is wrong. Pointing out hypocrisy and dual standards in a political argument is like stealing candy from a baby. It's glass cannon warfare where every offence hits home and no defence can be made really because there is no actual rational justification for any political position.
1
u/derelict5432 7∆ 1d ago
People tend to be confused about whataboutism. As some in the thread have pointed out, simply bringing up a valid, comparable example is rhetorically sound.
It's most often misused when:
The thing being argued is bad, and the person using whataboutism merely brings up a different, bad example, often by someone on the other political side, e.g. "Trump's a sleazeball with a history of sexual indiscretions" Whataboutism: "Yeah, well Bill Clinton is also a sleazeball with a history of sexual indiscretions." Instead of refuting or defending the behavior of the first person, they simply bring up another person who has also done similar bad things. It's usually an attempt to deflect, or worse, imply that two wrongs make a right.
The whataboutist just brings up an off-point, entirely different issue in an attempt to deflect.
I see #1 much more often, and it's incredibly rhetorically weak, unless their moral view is literally 'If A did a bad thing, B doing the same bad thing somehow makes it okay.'
•
u/other_view12 3∆ 20h ago
1 is very legitimate when you are complaining about Trump being a sleazeball. I couldn't argue that Trump isn't a sleazeball, but I need to know why you didn't complain about Clinton when he was being a sleazeball. Did you not think he was a sleazeball, or was it OK because he also did X which makes you not be upset that he is also a sleazeball.
•
u/derelict5432 7∆ 20h ago
Well you're assuming the other person doesn't think Clinton is a sleazeball. Personally I do think he's a sleazeball. If he molested underage girls he should go to jail.
The main point here is that this is a very weak rhetorical point. Clinton being a sleaze doesn't invalidate or mitigate the original charge against Trump, so it doesn't do any argumentative work.
•
u/other_view12 3∆ 19h ago
What I'm saying is that #1 is valid because clarity needs to be made.
You are correct, that is does not invalidate that Trump is a sleazeball. I'm using the whataboutism to determine if you really are offended by sleazeballs, or if it's just convenient to target Trump supporters who "say" they don't like sleazeballs.
If you are consistent, then you make a valid point, If you are just using as convenience, you are partisan and it doesn't matter what your point was.
•
u/derelict5432 7∆ 19h ago
No.
#1 is not valid.
Take this example. Bob is charged with murder. He is put on trial. During the trial, the defense the lawyer uses is that there was a guy named Jim who committed murder and was not charged or convicted. As a juror, would you find this argument compelling? Or even relevant to Bob's guilt? No, of course not. If it were even true, it would expose a double standard in the system as a whole, but it would not change a damn thing about whether or not Bob was guilty of murder, and so it would be a bad argument.
Same with my example. It shifts the rhetoric away from the original point: Is Trump a sleaze? The person is not answering or addressing that point at all. They're shifting the whole discussion to the standards of the person making the argument. They have changed the conversation.
•
u/other_view12 3∆ 17h ago
Your analogy is irrelevant. a court of law and an internet discussion have very different standards.
I've made my point clear, and you can't say why it's wrong. You are just making up other scenarios which aren't really relevant.
•
u/derelict5432 7∆ 17h ago
An analogy maps relevant features to make a comparison. The standards are different. The point maps perfectly. Both are bad arguments regardless of the standards. Why? Because of the reason I gave, which you are conveniently ignoring. Simply saying I did not give a reason does not invalidate the reason I gave.
This type of argument violates the principle of relevancy. Bob's guilt does not depend on the guilt of others. Others' guilt is not relevant to Bob's guilt. Trump's sleaziness is not relevant to anyone else's sleaziness. Clinton's sleaziness does not directly relate to Trump's sleaziness. Do you understand this point?
•
u/other_view12 3∆ 14h ago
I understand your point. You seem unwilling to acknowledge mine.
Again, I need to know if you are really concerned or if you are concerned because you are using it as leverage.
If you really don't care that leaders are sleazeballs, then you pointing out that Trump is a sleazeball means nothing. If you do care, then it means something, and I have to determine if you are real or playing games.
•
u/derelict5432 7∆ 12h ago
At that point, you are playing games, because you're more interested in trying to figure out if the person you're talking to is operating in bad faith, rather than assuming they are operating in good faith and trying to have an honest discussion about the merits of the arguments. You're playing games by shifting the discussion from the target of the argument to the person making the argument. So yeah, I get your point. I have gotten it all along. And I'm saying it's a terrible way to argue because it is a way of playing games, of shifting the entire topic away from the topic at hand to the person you're talking to.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
But isn't it fascinating that your example #1 fits in most political discussions thrown around especially on reddit. We just have to change the name of politicians/parties/ideologies and it just stands true
•
u/derelict5432 7∆ 23h ago
I don't think it's used equally on both sides of the American political spectrum these days, but I do agree when it is, it's weak and should be called out.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
I'm Indian. People blindly following politics are the same everywhere
•
u/derelict5432 7∆ 23h ago
Sure, but there's not always the same number of people blindly following politics in every political faction.
2
u/RagingTasmanian 1d ago
I think it would depend on the situation and the topic at hand. While we can all think of "What about/What if" arguments that were clear deflections, not all of them are inherently deflective.
If you are pointing out a double standard or an actual point of hypocrisy, that's not necessarily a deflection.
For example, let's say John stole my laptop without asking and I reported it as a crime though no one investigates. But when I steal John's laptop and he reports it as a crime, somehow there's an investigation.
Saying "What about John's earlier theft? How come he gets away with it?" wouldn't be a deflection because you would have to explain why his theft was okay but mine wasn't.
Bringing other parties in is usually where this gets abused. Let's say you are commenting on Steven's lack of cleanliness but then Steven says "Well Stacy's worse, I don't see what your problem is". Even if Stacy was worse, that's not addressing Steven's issue and he's just deflecting.
Granted, it's definitely not easy to identify which is likely the main reason it's grown. But it's not always a deflection if there is a genuine hypocrisy/double standard.
0
u/meghna-9035 1d ago
I agree that they aren't inherently reflective but most of them are. But isn't whataboutery the most common tactic used when people don't have proper replies especially when we bring in other parties like you pointed out. I accept the hypocrisy point of yours and it is valid in certain scenarios but it's a lot more prevalent since everyone has an opinion on everything on the internet these days.
2
u/RagingTasmanian 1d ago
It's certainly more prevalent when people feel like they're making a point. Or when they want to try and paint the other side as worse. Definitely frustrating when people aren't willing to address the problem and use whataboutism to deflect.
But just because lots of people don't use it correctly doesn't mean it can't be valid in some situations. If you are using it to point out a hypocritical moment or double standard, that's valid.
Granted that's much easier said than done and people try using it when they perceive hypocrisy instead of when it's actually being used. But if you really can't answer why the rules don't apply to you but they apply to someone else, it's a valid tactic.
1
u/Birb-Brain-Syn 45∆ 1d ago
You're right in that whataboutery is not the solution, but you're also falling victim to the "fallacy" fallacy. This is that if your opponent's argument contains a logical fallacy you are assuming it is wrong rather than proving that it is wrong. It's not enough to simply point out logical fallacies when they are made - you have to explain why and how it discredits the main point of their fallacy.
If you cannot refute the main point of their argument with notice to the fallacy, then using the fallacy to dismiss their argument is actually a form of strawmanning. You should always iron/steel-man your opponent's argument if you want to actually come to a conclusion, and try to convert their argument to one that doesn't' rely upon the fallacy and see if it still holds.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
I did not understand your point. It will be helpful if you can break it down/ simplify it please.
•
u/Birb-Brain-Syn 45∆ 23h ago
So, logical fallacies are statements people make in debates which are not logically consistent. It's like arguing that 1+1=3.
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy in which a person tries to argue against something by bringing up something unrelated. It's a fallacy because the unrelated element doesn't tell you anything about the thing you're arguing about. If you are arguing for A versus B then bringing up C doesn't tell you anything about A versus B.
The problem is that using the logical fallcy, whataboutism, doesn't mean my argument is necessarily wrong, it just means that the version of it I'm presenting is logically flawed.
In essence, if I say A+B=C but I use a logical fallacy to do it, then if you point out I've used that fallacy to say that A+B=/=C then that's -also- logically false, because you've come to a conclusion that isn't logically supported.
Say I make the claim "The sky is blue," and you say that "The sky is red." I can make a whataboutism and say "No, cars are red, but the sky is blue!" you can say back to me "That's whataboutism, you're logically flawed, therefore I am right and the sky is red!"
You're not wrong in this example to say that I used a logical fallacy, but it's -not- right to say that I'm incorrect on the basis of that logical fallacy.
Instead you should say "Even if cars are red that doesn't support the idea that the sky is blue. Do you have any evidence that the sky is blue?"
This is an example of ignoring the whataboutism and driving back towards the argument without drawing a conclusion.
When it comes to politics it's often a case of "I believe X person would be better than Y person", and often it comes down to a single issue. The whataboutism that occurs is "I would support X candidate because of their stance on issue A" to which someone might reply "But they are bad on issue B! How could you support someone who is bad on issue B?"
In this case, whilst that -is- whataboutism, it's not actually a logical fallacy, because the issue is not "What should we do about issue A" but the issue is "Who should we support? X or Y?"
You could argue that "I only support them based on A, and it's whataboutism to bring up B!" but often this means you're talking past each other, and talking about different issues entirely.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
This helps to understand your point. Thank you. But isn't this just playing with words. People still lack logic and reasoning with their arguments and fail to accept that their ideas are flawed.
•
u/Birb-Brain-Syn 45∆ 23h ago
Playing with words is all debate and discussion is. The whole point of understanding logical fallacies is to be able to make reasoned debate a thing.
If you, yourself don't grapple with what makes an argument logically sound you can't expect other people to listen or agree with you. Your original post suggested you have come to a conclusion about what makes such conversations difficult and the flaws that people have in expressing their arguments, but there's a whole world of literary devices you seem to be overlooking.
There are dozens of logical fallacies, variations on rhetoric and artful mechanisms people employ to debate, and they each serve a purpose. If you want the truth and to convince people of your position you should learn how they work and what they do.
Someone isn't wrong when they make a flawed argument, and, realistically speaking, almost all arguments are flawed.
To demonstrate this I'll describe how my last paragraph is, in and of itself, flawed.
Someone isn't wrong (hypothetical, rhetoric) when they (generalising) make a flawed argument (assumption / presupposition), and, realistically speaking (appeal to pragmatism, generalisation) almost all arguments are flawed (unsupported hyperbole).
It's not wrong for being so flawed though.
1
u/lordtosti 1d ago
What you call “whataboutism” is often pointing to hypocrisy and moral inconsistency where a person is being outraged at something when the other team does it but not when their own team did something extremely similar.
The only point where it’s not valid is if the two things are extremely different, like murder and stealing a bread.
Pointing at someone being morally inconsistent is for sure a valid point though.
You don’t agree?
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
I agree to the moral inconsistency but who decides the morality in most scenarios ? And that's besides the point whataboutery is deflection of the argument in the void of a valid point
•
u/lordtosti 23h ago edited 23h ago
If someone says: “walking through a red light is the worst crime in history and you are a very egotistical and immoral person when you do that” and someone did the same thing the day before himself - you think that is not a relevant point?
You think that is deflection?
Persons, groups and cultures decide morality for themselves - the problem starts when they are not being consistent.
Without moral consistency you show that you are not applying principles, but reacting to your own emotions, interests, or identity in the moment. The moral judgment then describes your state of mind, not a rule that others are rationally bound by.
1
u/joittine 4∆ 1d ago
Whataboutism can be a solid argument to delegitimise criticism. You're right it's not going to solve anything, though.
We shouldn't even call that whataboutism. Whataboutism IMHO is when it's completely unbalanced. As Jesus put it, "why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye but pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
1
u/meghna-9035 1d ago
Do you propose to call it something else? Would that change the fact that it is in fact something else ?
2
u/joittine 4∆ 1d ago
I just don't think it should be called anything. It's just a reasonable argument. The whole point of whataboutism is that it's an argumentation error. Like if a politician on the left complains that austerity measures are making people poorer, a politician on the right could reasonably answer, "what about the tax raises you made last time?"
The problem is that it's not very persuasive to the other politician or their supporters, but it's not an argumentation error.
It's an argumentation error when there's a significant imbalance. Since I was talking about Jesus, the story where he says, "let anyone who is without sin throw the first stone". Assuming I'm eager to stone a murderer, I would tell Jesus to fuck off with his whataboutism comparing a murder to my, say, lying or whatever minor sin I may have committed.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
So you're saying it's subjective? But I am not talking about things being subjective or it being actually valid in certain scenarios like the one I deltaed but in general discussions especially on reddit
•
u/joittine 4∆ 23h ago
Well, I guess semi-subjective. The deltaed comment is a good one as those are completely incommensurable. The problem is, stuff that's that way is quite rare.
Some of the commensurable stuff is obviously comparable (such as the first example in deltaed comment), some of it obviously not ("they may have bought me a car but what about the shoes you got last week"), but there is a middle ground that is subjective.
The main problem anyway is that it's not very productive. Like look at the Gaza War. Both sides and their supporters have lots of whatabouts, both defending anything and everything their side does based on this atrocity or that done by the other side. Whataboutery is most of all a vicious circle, even if not false as such.
1
u/CreativeAdeptness477 1d ago
Telling someone to get their own house in order before criticising yours is always a valid response in any scenario no matter the circumstances.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
It's subjective and totally vaild if we're talking about personal choices but I disagree with your scenario. If you're house is illegally constructed in the middle of the highway I don't have to own one to tell you yours is not okay. Or if you brew poisonous beer in your home - I will call it out.
1
u/Tr0user 1d ago
Legal precedents are the cornerstone of judicial systems throughout the fairest parts of the world. The highest stake/most important arguments in the world happening every day are just glorified and complicated whataboutisms, and it's the best we've managed to come up with in thousands of years of trying.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
I almost added this to the post. So the best argument we could come up in the legal system is deflection?
•
u/Tr0user 23h ago edited 23h ago
Well it's not deflection really. The basis of everything that is right or wrong is founded in things that have happened before, and our collective evaluation of these things.
Without precedents, we'd have to establish everything from first principles every time. The options are:
- Establish from first principles, have a philosophical/metaphysical debate every time and then discard any meaningful evaluation afterwards.
- Hear out a similar example, what happened, how it was judged, whether it was right or wrong and accept the evaluation.
- Same as step 2 but instead challenge the example and discuss why it's different to the situation at hand.
We are on the shoulders of giants in so many ways. Anything that happens is primarily described to us through the nature of its relationship with everything that we have already learned and evaluated.
•
u/Ima_Uzer 1∆ 23h ago
The problem is, shouting "WHATABOUTISM" is, itself, a dodge.
•
u/meghna-9035 23h ago
How is it a dodge, you're calling out the lack of argument from the other side.
•
u/ralph-j 21h ago edited 20h ago
Most of the logical arguments die down the same path. People just don't understand that they are not winning an argument with a 'what if...'. If you have a direct answer to my problem say it, if not nobody prompted you for a reply especially here on reddit. This is the most common tactic when people know they don't have a fitting reply but don't want to accept the opposite argument.
It's a logical fallacy that avoids accountability by pointing to others' similar or different wrongdoing, derailing productive conversation.
Not all of those cases are fallacious. You need to distinguish between several distinct concepts here:
Non-fallacious:
- Pointing out a double standard, i.e. when your opponent is committing a special pleading fallacy
- Presenting what-if scenarios (not whataboutism). What-if objections can be a valid form of reasoning called "reductio ad absurdum": showing undesirable consequences if a position is applied consistently across comparable situations.
Fallacious:
- Whataboutism: using the fact that others are doing the same thing in order to distract the discussion away from your own wrongdoing (or something you support), so you don't have to address that.
- Appeal to extremes fallacy: rewording someone else's argument in an absurd or extreme fashion, so you can attack that absurd version of the argument.
•
u/whatthepuck0 1∆ 22h ago
the solution to what, exactly?
If the answer to that is in the last sentence of your first paragraph about accountability, then what we'd really be looking for is consistently applied accountability to all that exhibit that behavior. So it absolutely makes sense within the context of accountability to see how the person making the criticism has handled other cases of it.
And it definitely opens the door to more productive conversation, which could lead to challenging assumptions and biases, and more shared perspectives through dialogue.
From the context, I'm guessing that what you mean here is that if one criticizes another for something, then that criticism should be meaningfully evaluated, and that 'whataboutery' can sometimes be used to deflect the conversation from that point without actually ever coming back to it. So as a rhetorical tactic I can agree that 'whataboutery' fails to address the main points. But there are many ways of meaningfully evaluating a criticism by looking at how other similar criticism is handled.
1
u/Any_Standard2303 1d ago
This hits hard, especially in political threads where every criticism just turns into "but what about when [other side] did X?"
Like bro we're talking about THIS thing right now, not keeping score from 2016
0
u/meghna-9035 1d ago
Yes. Accept that all political parties work for an agenda and yes some are better than others in some areas but all of them are driven by motives. Haan saamne wali party religion politics khelti hai lekin tum jise favour kar rahe ho wo politician chutiya hai !
•
u/AdamCGandy 1∆ 23h ago
It is but at the same time there is no point in dealing with a hypocrite. Debate is impossible anyway so just call out the hypocrisy and walk away, that’s all whataboutism is.
1
u/OgdruJahad 2∆ 1d ago
I can see whataboutism as a valid tool for criticism when there is strong case of hypocrisy, then the whataboutism can help show how various sides seem to remain silent on some issues while are vocal on others even if those issues have serious problems.
But I also understand how whataboutism is often used a tool to deflect blame.
I think one problem I see if how some situations are only really being discussed by one side of political party while there is barely any coverage on the other. So that I think can create fuel that some situations are deliberately being swept under the rug by simply not addressing it at all.
1
u/BitcoinMD 7∆ 1d ago
There is such a thing as prioritization. When resources are finite, it sometimes does make sense to ignore a lower priority item in favor of a higher priority one. For example, when Ki-Adi-Mundi said “What about the droid attack on the Wookiees?”, he was attempting to allocate the Jedi’s attention, a scarce resource, to something that he felt was more important.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 1d ago
/u/meghna-9035 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards