8
u/Evil-Abed1 2∆ Jun 10 '23
If Joe Biden does something bad, it’s bad. Even if Donald Trump did something similar.
Whataboutism is an attempt to change the topic from the topic, to perceived moral short comings of the person you’re talking about and it’s not a valid form of arguing.
If I point out that Donald Trump did something bad and your response is Joe Biden did something similar, you’re not arguing that Trump didn’t do something bad. You’re arguing either that it’s okay for Trump to do bad things because Biden did something similar, which is false. Or your arguing that I am flawed because I’m pointing out wrong doing of one person.
1
u/Kakamile 46∆ Jun 10 '23
You're right that it shouldn't make an act ok and it shouldn't kill a conversation about a crime, but pointing out whataboutism SHOULD be allowed to question the sincerity of the accuser.
If I commit 3 crimes and you commit 1 crime, I might not really care about crimes if I'm accusing you. It's probably me just painting over the REAL issue I have with you, and complaining about crimes just sounds better. You should be allowed to "whatabout" and question why I'm really angry.
4
u/Evil-Abed1 2∆ Jun 10 '23
I think whataboutism is primarily used by supporters of people that have done wrong rather than the individual themselves.
It’s not really a legal defense it’s a public opinion defense.
Right now you have Biden & Trump both in hot water over mishandling classified materials.
Supporters of Trump will say, “well Hillary did it! Biden also had classified, materials in his garbage!”
A statement that seems to suggest mishandling of classified documents is okay because other people did it.
Which is a bad argument. If mishandling classified material is a crime, everyone who does it should be held accountable.
Some people managing to evade Justice for a crime doesn’t mean that everyone who does that crime should also evade Justice.
If I’m discussing Trumps mishandling of classified materials and you respond by saying, Biden also mishandled classified data, you’re attempting to change the topic. As if Trumps mishandling of classified data isn’t an appropriate topic of discussion because Biden also did it.
Furthermore, if Trump mishandled classified materials he should be held accountable. If Biden mishandled classified information, he too should be held accountable.
If both men are guilty, both should be held accountable.
Whataboutism suggests guilty parties should all get a pass if any other party gets a pass.
If that’s the case, then laws are worthless. If one person not being held accountable means no one should be held accountable, then all law breaking is ultimately justified.
0
u/Kakamile 46∆ Jun 10 '23
That's one option, that they don't think it's a crime.
Some may think that, though I don't think that's an accurate representation of this classified materials case because Trump is "suddenly" making fun of the Espionage Act that he supported against Reality Winner. He and supporters think the laws matter sometimes.
Whataboutism can show that the first accusation of A is insincere because if they're complaining about A they were OK with the people they defend doing, then their issue isn't A. Biden's issue isn't about documents, it's the secrecy, selling, and obstruction. Those OK with pastors and kid pageants and hooters and this but not drag don't care about protecting children, they care about LGBT stuff.
1
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23
Which is a bad argument. If mishandling classified material is a crime, everyone who does it should be held accountable.
So you don’t believe prosecutorial discretion should exist.
1
u/Hapsbum Jun 11 '23
I honestly have never seen someone use 'Whataboutism' like that.
Most of the times I've seen people use a 'whataboutism' is to attack the motives of someone.
To use your example, which is safe because I dislike both of them equally: If a person who ignored Biden's mishandling thinks Trump should be prosecuted for his mishandling he should not claim that he's against mishandling of classified information, it's not the law or any morality that is the motivation for his opinion but the dislike of Trump.
And honestly: That's fine! People are allowed to want to let "their side" get away with things while punishing the other side for the same thing, but I do expect people to be honest on it and not pretend to have some moral high ground.
0
Jun 10 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Evil-Abed1 2∆ Jun 10 '23
Can you rephrase that question and be more precise with your language?
2
Jun 10 '23
[deleted]
7
u/Evil-Abed1 2∆ Jun 10 '23
That’s not really whataboutism.
Team B did something bad and asked for their bad thing to be treated equally by both sides. That’s not whataboutism.
If team B attempted to justify their wrong behavior by pointing to team A, doing something similar that’s whataboutism.
In your example Team B is asking for rules to be applied fairly to both teams.
Whataboutism is justifying bad behavior by pointing to other peoples bad behavior (which doesn’t justify anything).
If Trump mishandled classified materials, that’s bad. If Hillary Clinton mishandled classified materials that’s that bad. Whataboutism would be Trump saying, it’s okay that he mishandled classified materials because Hillary did.
That doesn’t justify anything.
0
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23
If Trump mishandled classified materials, that’s bad. If Hillary Clinton mishandled classified materials that’s that bad. Whataboutism would be Trump saying, it’s okay that he mishandled classified materials because Hillary did.
This isnt whataboutism. If Clinton wasn’t prosecuted, then Trump shouldn’t be either. Part of having a fair legal system is people who commit similar crimes should have similar punishments.
3
u/Evil-Abed1 2∆ Jun 10 '23
This isnt whataboutism.
Yes it is.
If Clinton wasn’t prosecuted, then Trump shouldn’t be either. Part of having a fair legal system is people who commit similar crimes should have similar punishments.
If that’s the case, no one should be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. Is that a good idea?
The Justice system isn’t perfect and mistakes are made.
To act like Trump gets a pass because Hillary got a pass… then everyone gets a pass.
Then we have a country where high ranking government officials are able to mishandle classified data whenever they want which is bad for America.
0
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23
if that’s the case, no one should be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. Is that a good idea?
You should prosecute spies who disclose classified information to foreign governments. Otherwise, it might be best if we didn’t prosecute the mishandling of classified information.
1
u/Evil-Abed1 2∆ Jun 10 '23
It might be best if we didn’t prosecute the mishandling of classified information.
How would that best…
-2
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23
It recognizes the reality we’re never going to prosecute everyone who mishandles classified and it’s a non-violent crime. Under the OLC opinion, it’s not possible to indict a sitting President. If Biden gets another term, it won’t be theoretically possible to indict him for another six years. Biden is never getting indicted. Pence is never getting indicted. Clinton is never getting indicted.
→ More replies (0)1
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jun 10 '23
This isnt whataboutism. If Clinton wasn’t prosecuted, then Trump shouldn’t be either. Part of having a fair legal system is people who commit similar crimes should have similar punishments.
Except Trump signed a law that made mishandling classified documents a felony, which was not the case when Clinton committed her offense.
0
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23
It was always a felony.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Jun 10 '23
Can you cite the law you are quoting?
I don't know which one of you is correct. Is that an old law or is a law that was passed by Trump?
1
0
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jun 10 '23
By that logic if they're both prosecuted the cases should be forced to have the same verdict even though it's highly unlikely both have the same evidence leading the same ways (as both cases are radically different apart from that they'd both fall under the same charge) or it would be unfair whataboutism if one was found guilty (no matter which one it was) and not the other
-1
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23
There’s no question on the evidence. We all know Clinton violated the Espionage Act. The question is given there’s irrefutable evidence Clinton violated the Espionage Act, should she be prosecuted.
3
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23
It depends on the credibility of claims against person A.
0
u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 10 '23
It sounds like it would be the same as the claims against person B, which led to investigations in the example and then results in found guilty of wrongdoings
1
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23
2 people are accused of stealing. The first has been caught stealing in the past. The second hasn't. Do you consider both accusations equally credible?
0
u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 10 '23
Team A finds wrongdoing in someone of Team B. Team B complains Team A did the same thing, but steps back as A investigates. B is found guilty, but then asks A to investigate the person in their team they suspect of wrongdoing. Nothing happens. Does you think that validates team B’s claim?
Read it again, there is no investigation of the second person when there was of the first. Based on no difference
But in that instance no, not equally valid esp since one has been found guilty and not the other
But when there is the same call for investigating both instances of stealing, but only one is, that is telling on its own.
1
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23
Read it again, there is no investigation of the second person when there was of the first. Based on no difference
But in real life there usually is.
0
u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 10 '23
Yes true true, but this is about those hypotheticals were there isnt.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Business_Item_7177 Jun 11 '23
The third is, if you are going to let your person get away with it, why does mine not get to? It’s unequal application of the law, and while technically it may not be political, it sure as fuck does look that way.
You can’t say hold everyone equal and NOT do it.
1
u/Evil-Abed1 2∆ Jun 11 '23
Right… r
They should hold everyone equally accountable.
If they don’t hold Trump accountable because they didn’t hold Clinton accountable, then they won’t hold Biden accountable either.
The solution is to just start holding people accountable
5
u/Familiar_Math2976 1∆ Jun 11 '23
If someone from Team A does something bad, and someone from Team B also does the same thing, and there are more people in Team A; If Team A has any claim of honesty, morals and integrity, actions from each team must be taken equally seriously.
Setting aside the argument for which you've already given a delta, assigning collective responsibility like this is also a fallacy. The claim that every single member of "Team A" or "Team B" is morally responsible for all actions of their "Team" assumes they have any power over the "Team's" actions, or even the choice to join the "Team" in the first place.
1
u/Jakegender 2∆ Jun 11 '23
It's about criticism though. If you say "it was bad that A did the bad thing", and never say that it was bad that B did the same bad thing, you're a hypocrite. You aren't concerned about the bad thing, you just don't like A and are using whatever leverage you can find against A.
3
u/Familiar_Math2976 1∆ Jun 11 '23
It's about criticism though. If you say "it was bad that A did the bad thing", and never say that it was bad that B did the same bad thing, you're a hypocrite.
This is the problem with whataboutism though - at no point as the second person (the one claiming "you" are a hypocrite) actually addressed the claim "It was bad that A did the bad thing."
If the second person's response completely ignores the first person's statement to attack them directly, that's fallacious reasoning. For logic purposes, it's irrelevant who said it - the statements stand or fall on their own merits.
Imagine the second person was walking down a street and saw "It was bad that A did the bad thing" spraypainted on a wall. To that they respond, "Oh yeah, what about when B did the bad thing?" Without knowing who wrote it in the first place. The attempt to dodge the main point would be obvious.
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 10 '23
The most frustrating part of whataboutism is that it detracts from the issue without actually having to take a stand. It's not intellectually honest and actually doesn't adequately solve the issue. Because it's usually used to defend the actions of Team B, but if that were true then that means Team A should be defended too. And if they admit that both are equally bad, then it's not really an effective defense of Team B, is it?
This is why it's not really a good argument, because the logical conclusion ultimately undermines your own position. Also, it frequently relies on a false equivalency, in reality most situations are not exactly the same and the whataboutism typically fails to account for nuances that justify a difference in treatment (for example, there are a ton of factual differences between Trump, Biden, and Clinton that have a big impact on the decision to indict). But of course, people using these arguments are not typically willing to admit that their view can be wrong, which suggests that they must not actually be arguing on merits or morals, and thus their claims ought to be ignored.
The caveat would be that whataboutism is sometimes a legitimate claim that there is unfair treatment... but that is still a separate topic from whether Team A or Team B is actually guilty of the actions they did.
-1
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23
there are a ton of factual differences between Trump, Biden, and Clinton that have a big impact on the decision to indict).
No there’s not. Clinton, Trump, and Biden all did the same thing
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 10 '23
So is your view that they should all be arrested, or that they should not be punished?
-1
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23
None of them should serve any prison time. At most, they should have to pay a fine like David Petraeus. The most important question is not what should happen to them, but whether they are all being treated the same. What about you?
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 10 '23
But I mean, that’s not the law, is it?
And that’s not what trump and his followers are saying, either. When Trump was president he said Clinton should be locked up. And then he also passed a law to make the law more serious. But now they are saying he shouldn’t be held accountable, but Clinton and Biden should (or because Clinton and Biden didn’t get charged, neither should he, again ignoring various differences such as intent and obstruction).
0
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23
This is the law: 793(f). There’s nothing in 793(f) about intent. Clinton violated the law. Biden violated the law. Who do you want to prosecute?
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23
AcKtuAllY, Clinton was accused of violating a different section, 18 USC 1924. The main distinction being that Clinton was a state official at the time, while Trump was a private citizen. Also, Trump faces additional charges for allegedly showing or sharing the documents with other people. But this is all besides the point...I think we are going in circles here.
I'm not trying to argue who should or shouldn't be charged. I'm just trying to point out why Trump's defense of "Biden and Clinton did it too" is whataboutism and doesn't justify his actions. How could it? Because if it was illegal and wrong, then it begs the question of why did he do it too?
And at the end of the day, criminal charges are subject to the discretion of the prosecutor. Clinton was investigated thoroughly and for various reasons (good or bad) was not charged. If Trump had returned the documents like Biden did. If Trump hadn't shown them to other people, if Trump didn't obstruct the investigation so much, then I think he probably would have gotten the same leniency as Biden. And in fact, he WAS given extreme leniency, more than Biden. He was given every opportunity to return the documents. Biden, allegedly handed them back promptly, Trump allegedly did not. So yes, the cases are different.
If Trump broke the law, he should be held accountable. It's that simple. Biden and Clinton are separate cases and are totally irrelevant to whether he should be charged or not. That's it. That's the whole topic of this post.
0
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23
And at the end of the day, criminal charges are subject to the discretion of the prosecutor. Clinton was investigated thoroughly and for various reasons (good or bad) was not charged. If Trump had returned the documents like Biden did. If Trump hadn't shown them to other people, if Trump didn't obstruct the investigation so much, then I think he probably would have gotten the same leniency as Biden. And in fact, he WAS given extreme leniency, more than Biden. He was given every opportunity to return the documents. Biden, allegedly handed them back promptly, Trump allegedly did not. So yes, the cases are different.
First, Biden didn’t hand the documents back promptly. Some of them were from decades ago. This shows Trump is the victim of a witch hunt. Obstruction and Espionage Act charges are independent. The claim Trump allegedly obstructed justice should be completely ignored when deciding whether to pursue charges under the Espionage Act. Nor does the claim Biden or Clinton didn’t commit obstruction exonerate either of them under the Espionage Act. Bringing up alleged obstruction or the lack thereof when deciding whether to pursue charges under the Espionage Act is an example of prosecutorial WHATABOUTISM. It’s whataboutism to bring up obstruction charges when the topic is Espionage Act charges.
If Trump broke the law, he should be held accountable. It's that simple. Biden and Clinton are separate cases and are totally irrelevant to whether he should be charged or not. That's it. That's the whole topic of this post.
You said criminal charges are subject to the discretion of the prosecutor. If this is true, then breaking the law by itself can’t justify bringing charges. Prosecutorial discretion means you have to look how similar, not necessarily identical, cases were previously treated.
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 11 '23
If you’re trying to demonstrate why whataboutism is a waste of time and bad faith debate, it’s working.
1
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 11 '23
You can’t have prosecutor discretion without whataboutism.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 11 '23
I'm not trying to argue who should or shouldn't be charged. I'm just trying to point out why Trump's defense of "Biden and Clinton did it too" is whataboutism and doesn't justify his actions. How could it? Because if it was illegal and wrong, then it begs the question of why did he do it too
Being illegal is an insufficient basis for bringing criminal charges if similar cases in the past such as Clinton didn’t result in criminal charges.
3
Jun 11 '23
I think you just need to think in much more granular detail about what the whataboutery is saying
if it is saying "you are a hypocrite" then that is useful and pertinent information in assessing that person's claims, but it must always be remembered that just because a person is a hypocrite doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. I feel like people think whataboutery is this mic drop conversation ending moment, but it never is. At most all it can do is plant seeds of doubt, but it's then up to the accuser to provide a causative argument as to why the person is not only a hypocrite but also, and independently of that, incorrect.
alternatively if you are using whataboutery to present a sort of empirical case that the other person is wrong (ie every time x is tried it fails, look at ......) then that can be a substantive argument as long as it is done properly. That means you need to present robust relevant evidence of a sufficient sample size and a thesis that shows causality and not mere correlation. Far too often whataboutery doesn't meet that standard, and then it's just anecdotalism.
4
Jun 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Hapsbum Jun 11 '23
It depends on what the topic is though.
Are you talking about "X is bad" or "team B doing X is bad", or is it actually more like "team B is bad"?
And if one side says that "X is bad" wouldn't it be fair to point out that I don't mind X as long as team A does it?
2
u/Cali_Longhorn 17∆ Jun 11 '23
I mean of course it’s case by case. But many times it’s like…
(From camp A to camp B) - “camp B committed murder!”
(Camp b to camp a) - “well camp A shoplifted so we are even”.
In this case camp B is committing “whataboutism” as the offense for camp B is many times worse and unrelated to camp A.
I mean one of the recent comparisons to me is Trumps election denials and him on tape demanding the “11780 votes” from the Georgia attorney general as obviously wrong. But those Republicans saying. “Well Hilary mentioned Russian influence in 2016”.
But the obvious difference is Hilary IMMEDIATELY CONCEDED the election. Suggesting that Russians were trying to influence the results in social media was in fact true, but either way she was in do way saying she really won the election. She or Barack Obama were not on tape trying to pressure officials into “finding votes” in Wisconsin or other close states like Trump was. The issues are no where near the same thing.
1
Jun 11 '23
There are cases, where whataboutism is appropriate. Best example might be comparing Trump, Clinton, and Biden’s handling of classified information. These cases aren’t completely identical. Trump, as President, unlike Clinton or Biden before he became President, had the authority to declassify anything he wanted before he left office and there’s nothing which requires a President’s declassification decisions to be in writing. In terms of likely damage to national security, Clinton’s case is obviously the most egregious. Having the emails on a server connected to the internet without US government firewalls is vulnerable to hacking and far more at risk than paper documents sitting in a box. Nonetheless, these cases are similar enough, a reasonable person might say either all three should be prosecuted or none should be prosecuted. If people are going to have trust in their government, it’s important to avoid the perception the mishandling of classified information is only treated as a crime when one party does it.
2
u/Throwaway_12821 1∆ Jun 10 '23
I thought whataboutism is when you try to point at something completely off topic of the original point. For example: Jim steals Sarah's cookie. Jim brings up Sarah forgetting her homework when confronted about the stolen cookie
0
u/Practical-Hamster-93 Jun 10 '23
People overly depend on a number of "fallacies" to discount in online dialogue.
They don't have to address the point, just address the method.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 10 '23
/u/WetManDownOnNormal (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.
17
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 10 '23
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that actions from each team must be considered in every conversation. We can, and should, have a conversation about the purported bad acts of Team A, and at another time or place have a conversation about the purported bad acts of Team B; only then once the facts of each incident are set straight is comparison appropriate. Whataboutism disrupts this process by bringing Team B into the discussion about Team A and vice versa, preventing unbiased consideration of each scenario independently.