Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation. … Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a “Russian tradition”, while The New Yorker described the technique as “a strategy of false moral equivalences”. Julia Ioffe called whataboutism a “sacred Russian tactic”, and compared it to accusing the pot of calling the kettle black. …
Citations Needed podcast: Whataboutism - The Media’s Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy
Since the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.
But what if “whataboutism” isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term “whataboutism” has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.
Ben Burgis @ Current Affairs: Is “Whataboutism” Always a Bad Thing?
Discussing the crimes of our own country as well as the crimes of others is not always an effort to downplay other countries’ crimes—it can be a test of whether we are serious about our principles.
Is whataboutism acceptable, when Israel defends its actions in Gaza by saying “What about Hamas crimes?” Is saying ‘what about Hamas’ a valid defense against allegations of war crimes in Gaza? Should Israel be allowed to commit war crimes in Gaza because Russia is committing or facilitating war crimes in Sudan and Ukraine? “We bombed a hospital, but what about Russia! What about Assad?”
Personally, I think what Israel is doing in Gaza is no less bad, because the Russians are doing similar things in Ukraine, or because Assad bombed hospitals.
You see, the worst thing about what’s happening in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Xinjiang, wherever… it’s not the hypocrisy. It’s the war crimes.
Whataboutism isn’t cunning. It’s stupid and only useful idiots and morons think otherwise.
Removed by mod
So he’s taking responsibility for Gaza?
Not just Gaza, USA is the biggest arms dealer in the world.
Lmaooo what a stupid thing for an American president to say
So…
Since Biden went around Congress to supply weapons to Israel they’re using to genocide the people of Gaza…
Biden is now claiming personal responsibility for the genocide in Gaza?
Like, has anybody honestly checked on Biden lately? Does he not understand what he’s saying or is he really leaning into “what are you gonna do, vote trump?” Strategy this hard already?
Because the danger is depressing turnout enough trump may win, not Dem voters voting trump.
And this shit show of a comment is going to depress turnout for Biden…
I really think Trump will win again. Regardless of my opinion, I see that Republicans are focusing mainly on “look how good our guy is” and Democrats are only saying “look how bad that guy is” . The Democrats don’t seem enthusiastic about their candidate.
The thing is they’re half assing it.
They want voter to believe at the same time:
-
If trump is president he can do anything he wants.
-
If Biden is president, the president has no power.
Only Republicans and neoliberals are used to dealing with that level of cognitive dissonance.
It’s why 1/3 of eligible voters don’t vote.
I’ll probably get eaten alive by this comment section, but I’ll try anyway. I think there is more nuance here.
Trump has no respect for the rule of law, checks and balances, or the intended role of the executive branch. Trump at president will do anything possible to achieve his goals, no matter what he tramples along the way.
Biden isn’t that type of president. He does respect checks and balances and the idea of a powerful, but constrained presidency. He’s not going to go slam through a blatantly unconstitutional EO every time he doesn’t get his “wall”.
Much like before Trump, if you want change, you have to vote for more than the presidency, unless you’re willing to trample everything about the three branches of government. And maybe you’re also looking for an unleashed sort of populist presidency, but that’s not going to fly with the majority of democratic voters who still want to return to some degree of governmental normalcy.
Biden isn’t that type of president. He does respect checks and balances and the idea of a powerful, but constrained presidency
Cough cough
The Biden administration went around Congress on Friday for the approval of an emergency weapons sale to Israel that includes “projectiles and related equipment,” per the Defense Department.
Why it matters: This is the second time in December that the administration has done so, and the move comes as Israel continues its war against Hamas and faces criticism for its military actions in Gaza.
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/30/blinken-biden-administration-emergency-israel-weapons-sale
You were saying?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Export_Control_Act
You would be absolutely correct if Biden gave weapons to Israel or if the narrative the White House pushes wasn’t that Israel is defending itself.
I don’t think that Israel is defending itself, I think that it’s intentionally trying to commit genocide, but the law doesn’t explain who gets to determine when a country is acting in self-defense. Claiming Biden circumvented Congress is inaccurate, as the President has had the sole authority to do this since the '70s. Biden, like the other commenter said, isn’t that type of President. Trump would have actually circumvented Congress by straight up giving stuff to Israel, rather than merely authorizing a sale.
To be clear, I don’t like that Biden did that either.
gave
Yes…
It’s sooo much different that they used some of the over billion of taxpayer dollars that we give them annually to “buy” them…
And reality isn’t just whatever the current administration says it is…
The Act of Congress requires international governments receiving weapons from the United States to use the armaments for legitimate self-defense. Consideration is given as to whether the exports “would contribute to an arms race, aid in the development of weapons of mass destruction, support international terrorism, increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict, or prejudice the development of bilateral or multilateral arms control or nonproliferation agreements or other arrangements.”[2]
For fucks sake, by your logic all of Trump’s ridiculous claims he made as president were true because he said it was.
It’s really getting old seeing Biden defenders act like trump supporters
Selling and giving are absolutely different, regardless of where the money comes from. I see what you mean, in that it is effectively giving, but that’s just now how the law works. It should, I think Biden shouldn’t even be able to override Congress in this regard, but that’s just how it is. Congress can change that at any time.
The situation in Gaza is gray for many people, it’s not easy to claim it’s objectively defense or offense without proving it in court. I’m not trying to debate the morality of this context, I’m saying that Biden did not circumvent Congress.
It’s really getting old seeing Biden defenders act like trump supporters
Bruh come on, you know that’s a bad faith ad hominem. Someone isn’t acting like a trump supporter because they call out a blatantly false argument lmfao. If anything, it’s the other way around, attacking a person by baselessly comparing them to the other political side.
Biden’s had no more regard for the intended role of the executive branch than Trump, he’s just less openly antagonistic about it. Trump openly derides the system, while Biden just quietly whips it into line.
-
misleading headlines are misleading:
Q But directly responsible?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ll have that discussion.
This is from the same President that slurred “womenofamerica” at a rally, so I guess it’s understandable he would confuse being responsible for being responsible.
that last statement you made sounds wierd. He said what has been the status quo. Those selling are somewhat responsible but not directly responsible. Thats why the us gets so much flak (well and the actual do things we do)
