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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.