Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Whataboutism" in English language version.
«Права человека – это дубинка в руках сильных мира сего, которую они используют, когда кто-то вокруг проявляет непослушание», - убежден азербайджанский политический деятель Араз Ализаде, возглавляющий Социал-демократическую партию Азербайджана. (Translation: "'Human rights is a stick in the hands of the powers of the world, that they use to beat anyone who disobeys them' says Araz Alizade, leader of the Social-Democratic Party of Azerbaijan")
But the problem for the anti-communists is that their general premise can be used as the basis for an equally good argument against capitalism, an argument that the so-called losers of economic transition in eastern Europe would be quick to affirm. The US, a country based on a free-market capitalist ideology, has done many horrible things: the enslavement of millions of Africans, the genocidal eradication of the Native Americans, the brutal military actions taken to support pro-Western dictatorships, just to name a few. The British Empire likewise had a great deal of blood on its hands: we might merely mention the internment camps during the second Boer War and the Bengal famine. This is not mere 'whataboutism', because the same intermediate premise necessary to make their anti-communist argument now works against capitalism: Historical point: the US and the UK were based on a capitalist ideology, and did many horrible things. General premise: if any country based on a particular ideology did many horrible things, then that ideology should be rejected. Political conclusion: capitalism should be rejected.
And I'd no time at all for 'What aboutism' – you know, people who said 'Yes, but what about what's been done to us? ... That had nothing to do with it, and if you got into it you were defending the indefensible.
Russian officials protested that other nations were no better, but these objections – which were in line with a Russian tradition of whataboutism – were swept aside.
28 April – Monday 09:30 – Staff at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, Sweden, detect a dangerous surge in radioactivity. Initially picked up when a routine check reveals that the soles shoes worn by a radiological safety engineer at the plant were radioactive. [28 April – Monday] 21:02 – Moscow TV news announce that an accident has occurred at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant.[...] [28 April – Monday] 23:00 – A Danish nuclear research laboratory announces that an MCA (maximum credible accident) has occurred in the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. They mention a complete meltdown of one of the reactors and that all radioactivity has been released.
There's another attitude ... that many Russians seem to share, what used to be called in the Soviet Union 'whataboutism', in other words, 'who are you to call the kettle black?'
'Whataboutism' was a favorite Kremlin propaganda technique during the Cold War. It aimed to portray the West as so morally flawed that its criticism of the Soviet empire was hypocritical.
Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'
Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.
Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.
It is not a bad tactic. Every criticism needs to be put in a historical and geographical context. A country that has solved most of its horrible problems deserves praise, not to be lambasted for those that remain. Similarly, behaviour that may be imperfect by international standards can be quite good for a particular neighbourhood.
Moscow's geopolitical whataboutism skills are unmatched
the old Soviet whataboutism whenever they were challenged on the gulag: 'But in America, you lynch Negroes.'
In a country where 'whataboutism' is part of the national psyche, Russia was quick to point to Washington's alleged failures after the strike in Syria.
Now something new is happening. The American president is taking Putin's 'what about you' tactic and turning it into 'what about us?' He is taking the very appealing and very American impulse toward self-criticism and perverting it. It's simplistic, even childish – but more importantly, it's dangerous.
Soviet-watchers called it 'whataboutism'. This was the Communist-era tactic of deflecting foreign criticism of, say, human rights abuses, by pointing, often disingenuously, at something allegedly similar in the critic's own country: 'Ah, but what about…?'
Russian policy makers, meanwhile, gain little from petulant bouts of 'whataboutism' – responding to U.S. statements on human rights in Russia with laundry lists of purported American shortcomings.
whataboutism from either the right or the left only leads to a black hole of angry recriminations from which nothing will escape.
The association of whataboutism with the Soviet Union began during the Cold War.
a traditional Russian propaganda strategy called 'whataboutism' ... In Trump's version of whataboutism, he repeatedly takes a word leveled in criticism against him and turns it back on his opponents—sidestepping the accusation and undercutting the meaning of the word at the same time.
The now sacred Russian tactic of 'whataboutism' started with civil rights: Whenever the U.S. pointed to Soviet human rights violations, the Soviets had an easy riposte. 'Well, you,' they said, 'lynch Negros.'
'Whataboutism' is running rampant in the White House these days. What's that, you may ask? It's a Cold War-era term for a form of logical jiu-jitsu that helps you to win arguments by gently changing the subject. When Soviet leaders were questioned about human rights violations, for example, they might come back with, 'Well, what about the Negroes you are lynching in the South?' That's not an argument, of course. It is a deflection to an entirely different issue. It's a naked attempt to excuse your own wretched behavior by painting your opponent as a hypocrite. But in the fast-paced world of media manipulation, the Soviet leader could get away with it merely by appearing to be strong and firm in defense of his country.
This particular brand of changing the subject is called 'whataboutism' – a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet Union and, later, Russia.
This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of 'whataboutism', the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt. This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called 'a killer'.
Tu quoque is a subset of the so-called ad hominem argument: a strike against the character, not the position, of one's opponent. Ad hominem gets a bad press, but it isn't without merit, when used in good faith. It's useful in an argument to show that the stance being taken against you is inconsistent or hypocritical. It doesn't win the day, but it chips away at your opponent's moral standing and raises doubt about the entirety of his or her position.
officials in Moscow have long relied on discussions of racial inequality in the United States to counter criticism of their own human rights abuses. 'The now sacred Russian tactic of "whataboutism" started with civil rights,' Ms. Ioffe wrote. 'Whenever the U.S. pointed to Soviet human rights violations, the Soviets had an easy riposte. "Well, you," they said, "lynch Negros."'
Whataboutism is the most popular tactic against foreign critics; 'how dare you criticise Azerbaijan, get your own house in order!'
Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'. ... Also called whataboutery
Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'
The parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in so-called 'whataboutism', the Soviet-era rhetorical tactic of responding to criticism about rights abuses by citing real or imagined abuses committed by the West.
The core problem is that this rhetorical device precludes a country (e.g., the United States) from discussing issues (e.g., civil rights) unless that country is perfect. It requires a state to advocate abroad only those ideals that it has achieved to the highest degree of perfection. The problem with ideals is that we as human beings almost never live up to them. If the United States waited to become a utopia before advocating freedom abroad, it would never happen. What matters are the ideals - that all men are created equal and have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - not that we have managed to live up to them perfectly. This is a struggle that the United States shares with the entire world: try, fail, and try again. The United States may not be a "very good" ambassador, but there may never be a better ambassador. It's the message that really matters.'
{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)Russia's president is already a master of 'whataboutism' – indeed, it is practically a national ideology.
As for 'whataboutism', Trump himself champions these kinds of cynical arguments about our country – not Russia.
In what amounts to an official document of whataboutism, the Turkish statement listed a roster of supposed transgressions by various governments now scolding Turkey for its dramatic purge of state institutions and civil society in the wake of a failed coup attempt in July.
Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'. ... Also called whataboutery
"Whataboutism" is another name for the logical fallacy of "tu quoque" (Latin for "you also"), in which an accusation is met with a counter-accusation, pivoting away from the original criticism. The strategy has been a hallmark of Soviet and post-Soviet propaganda, and some commentators have accused President Donald Trump of mimicking Mr. Putin's use of the technique.
It is not a bad tactic. Every criticism needs to be put in a historical and geographical context. A country that has solved most of its horrible problems deserves praise, not to be lambasted for those that remain. Similarly, behaviour that may be imperfect by international standards can be quite good for a particular neighbourhood.
Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.
Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'
The term was popularized by articles in 2007 and 2008 by Edward Lucas, senior editor at the Economist. Mr. Lucas, who served as the magazine's Moscow bureau chief from 1998 to 2002, saw 'whataboutism' as a typical Cold War style of argumentation, with "the Kremlin's useful idiots" seeking to "match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one".
The association of whataboutism with the Soviet Union began during the Cold War.
Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.
This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of 'whataboutism', the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt. This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called 'a killer'.
'Whataboutism' is running rampant in the White House these days. What's that, you may ask? It's a Cold War-era term for a form of logical jiu-jitsu that helps you to win arguments by gently changing the subject. When Soviet leaders were questioned about human rights violations, for example, they might come back with, 'Well, what about the Negroes you are lynching in the South?' That's not an argument, of course. It is a deflection to an entirely different issue. It's a naked attempt to excuse your own wretched behavior by painting your opponent as a hypocrite. But in the fast-paced world of media manipulation, the Soviet leader could get away with it merely by appearing to be strong and firm in defense of his country.
whataboutism from either the right or the left only leads to a black hole of angry recriminations from which nothing will escape.
Tu quoque is a subset of the so-called ad hominem argument: a strike against the character, not the position, of one's opponent. Ad hominem gets a bad press, but it isn't without merit, when used in good faith. It's useful in an argument to show that the stance being taken against you is inconsistent or hypocritical. It doesn't win the day, but it chips away at your opponent's moral standing and raises doubt about the entirety of his or her position.
The core problem is that this rhetorical device precludes a country (e.g., the United States) from discussing issues (e.g., civil rights) unless that country is perfect. It requires a state to advocate abroad only those ideals that it has achieved to the highest degree of perfection. The problem with ideals is that we as human beings almost never live up to them. If the United States waited to become a utopia before advocating freedom abroad, it would never happen. What matters are the ideals - that all men are created equal and have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - not that we have managed to live up to them perfectly. This is a struggle that the United States shares with the entire world: try, fail, and try again. The United States may not be a "very good" ambassador, but there may never be a better ambassador. It's the message that really matters.'
{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)«Права человека – это дубинка в руках сильных мира сего, которую они используют, когда кто-то вокруг проявляет непослушание», - убежден азербайджанский политический деятель Араз Ализаде, возглавляющий Социал-демократическую партию Азербайджана. (Translation: "'Human rights is a stick in the hands of the powers of the world, that they use to beat anyone who disobeys them' says Araz Alizade, leader of the Social-Democratic Party of Azerbaijan")
But the problem for the anti-communists is that their general premise can be used as the basis for an equally good argument against capitalism, an argument that the so-called losers of economic transition in eastern Europe would be quick to affirm. The US, a country based on a free-market capitalist ideology, has done many horrible things: the enslavement of millions of Africans, the genocidal eradication of the Native Americans, the brutal military actions taken to support pro-Western dictatorships, just to name a few. The British Empire likewise had a great deal of blood on its hands: we might merely mention the internment camps during the second Boer War and the Bengal famine. This is not mere 'whataboutism', because the same intermediate premise necessary to make their anti-communist argument now works against capitalism: Historical point: the US and the UK were based on a capitalist ideology, and did many horrible things. General premise: if any country based on a particular ideology did many horrible things, then that ideology should be rejected. Political conclusion: capitalism should be rejected.
Russia's president is already a master of 'whataboutism' – indeed, it is practically a national ideology.
officials in Moscow have long relied on discussions of racial inequality in the United States to counter criticism of their own human rights abuses. 'The now sacred Russian tactic of "whataboutism" started with civil rights,' Ms. Ioffe wrote. 'Whenever the U.S. pointed to Soviet human rights violations, the Soviets had an easy riposte. "Well, you," they said, "lynch Negros."'
The now sacred Russian tactic of 'whataboutism' started with civil rights: Whenever the U.S. pointed to Soviet human rights violations, the Soviets had an easy riposte. 'Well, you,' they said, 'lynch Negros.'
Russian officials protested that other nations were no better, but these objections – which were in line with a Russian tradition of whataboutism – were swept aside.
the old Soviet whataboutism whenever they were challenged on the gulag: 'But in America, you lynch Negroes.'
There's another attitude ... that many Russians seem to share, what used to be called in the Soviet Union 'whataboutism', in other words, 'who are you to call the kettle black?'
In a country where 'whataboutism' is part of the national psyche, Russia was quick to point to Washington's alleged failures after the strike in Syria.
Moscow's geopolitical whataboutism skills are unmatched
28 April – Monday 09:30 – Staff at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, Sweden, detect a dangerous surge in radioactivity. Initially picked up when a routine check reveals that the soles shoes worn by a radiological safety engineer at the plant were radioactive. [28 April – Monday] 21:02 – Moscow TV news announce that an accident has occurred at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant.[...] [28 April – Monday] 23:00 – A Danish nuclear research laboratory announces that an MCA (maximum credible accident) has occurred in the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. They mention a complete meltdown of one of the reactors and that all radioactivity has been released.
Soviet-watchers called it 'whataboutism'. This was the Communist-era tactic of deflecting foreign criticism of, say, human rights abuses, by pointing, often disingenuously, at something allegedly similar in the critic's own country: 'Ah, but what about…?'
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin employed the tried-and-true tactic of 'whataboutism'.
As for 'whataboutism', Trump himself champions these kinds of cynical arguments about our country – not Russia.
a traditional Russian propaganda strategy called 'whataboutism' ... In Trump's version of whataboutism, he repeatedly takes a word leveled in criticism against him and turns it back on his opponents—sidestepping the accusation and undercutting the meaning of the word at the same time.
'Whataboutism' was a favorite Kremlin propaganda technique during the Cold War. It aimed to portray the West as so morally flawed that its criticism of the Soviet empire was hypocritical.
This particular brand of changing the subject is called 'whataboutism' – a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet Union and, later, Russia.
Now something new is happening. The American president is taking Putin's 'what about you' tactic and turning it into 'what about us?' He is taking the very appealing and very American impulse toward self-criticism and perverting it. It's simplistic, even childish – but more importantly, it's dangerous.
The parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in so-called 'whataboutism', the Soviet-era rhetorical tactic of responding to criticism about rights abuses by citing real or imagined abuses committed by the West.
Whataboutism is the most popular tactic against foreign critics; 'how dare you criticise Azerbaijan, get your own house in order!'
In what amounts to an official document of whataboutism, the Turkish statement listed a roster of supposed transgressions by various governments now scolding Turkey for its dramatic purge of state institutions and civil society in the wake of a failed coup attempt in July.
"Whataboutism" is another name for the logical fallacy of "tu quoque" (Latin for "you also"), in which an accusation is met with a counter-accusation, pivoting away from the original criticism. The strategy has been a hallmark of Soviet and post-Soviet propaganda, and some commentators have accused President Donald Trump of mimicking Mr. Putin's use of the technique.
The term was popularized by articles in 2007 and 2008 by Edward Lucas, senior editor at the Economist. Mr. Lucas, who served as the magazine's Moscow bureau chief from 1998 to 2002, saw 'whataboutism' as a typical Cold War style of argumentation, with "the Kremlin's useful idiots" seeking to "match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one".
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin employed the tried-and-true tactic of 'whataboutism'.