Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Whataboutism" in Turkish 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.
'Whataboutism'. This was a term originally coined to describe Soviet propaganda during the Cold War about the 'real democracy' in the USSR and the hypocrisy in the West. All criticisms about the Soviet condition would be dismissed by pointing to flaws and double standards in the West, real or perceived, and asking 'What about this?' 'What about that?' The real issue at stake, that the USSR was a brutal dictatorship, was never addressed.
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.
The Financial Times described the network's nonstop anti-U.S. coverage as 'whataboutism'—as in sure, Russia has problems, but what about the States? ... In 2016, RT America at last began proving its usefulness to the Russian government. The outlet remained as second-rate as ever, but during an election campaign governed by populist rage, anti-Establishment whataboutism had fresh appeal.
Indeed, Putin's near-default response to criticism of how he runs Russia is whataboutism – a technique used by Soviet propagandists to deflect criticism from the West.
Since the Cold War, Moscow has engaged in a political points-scoring exercise known as 'whataboutism' used to shut down criticism of Russia's own rights record by pointing out abuses elsewhere. All criticism of Russia is invalid, the idea goes, because problems exist in other countries too.
Moral relativism, 'whataboutism', has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes. For a US president to employ it against his own country is tragic. Trump repeating Putin's words—and nearly Stalin's—by calling the press the enemy of the people, has repercussions around the world.
'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.
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?'
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?'
This is another throwback to the Cold War, and one Putin himself is fond of, called 'Whataboutism'. The essence of Whataboutism is to turn any complaint about Russia into an accusation that whatever it might be doing, the West is doing and has done worse. Despite the constant protestations that the Cold War is over, these attempts to turn criticism of the Kremlin back on the critics are often nothing more than a Putin-era version of anti-anti-Communism.
Trump also engaged in 'what-aboutism': 'With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special counsel appointed!' he tweeted twice in three hours.
Russian diplomats have been lately criticized for restoring the Soviet habit of 'whataboutism'
Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'
Soviet-style 'whataboutism' which signifies a revival of Cold War-style propaganda
Soviet-style practice of 'whataboutism' (which abandons the practice of dispassionate journalism), with a focus on discrediting the policies of the US government
Disinformation and 'whataboutism' undoubtedly feature strongly in Russian state-sponsored media content
Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.
'Whataboutism' was a favourite tactic of Soviet propagandists during the old Cold War. Any criticism of the Soviet Union's internal repression or external aggression was met by asking 'what about' some crime of the West, from slavery to the Monroe doctrine. In the era when political prisoners rotted in Siberia and you could be shot for trying to leave the socialist paradise, whataboutism was little more than a debating tactic. Most people inside the Soviet Union, particularly towards the end, knew that their system was based on lies and murder.
One of the most trusted Soviet techniques during the Cold War came to be known in the West as 'what-about-ism'. Faced with an accusation, for example that the Soviet Union worked political dissidents to death in prison camps, the propagandist would respond: well, what about those black men being forced to work on chain gangs in the South? This was effective, because by the time anyone had explained that the two are not, in fact, morally equivalent, the technique had done its work, changing the subject away from the gulag.
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
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 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.
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…?'
Disinformation and 'whataboutism' undoubtedly feature strongly in Russian state-sponsored media content
Instead, apologetic Ukrainian polemists regularly react to criticism by domestic and foreign observers with, what was known during Soviet times, as 'whataboutism': What about Polish whitewashing of the past? What about Israel's selective memory? What about crimes by other national liberation movements?
Putin dodged, just as a trained KGB officer would do. He even engaged in the favorite Kremlin 'whataboutism'
Russia combines Soviet-era 'whataboutism' and Chekist 'active measures' with a wised-up, post-modern smirk that says that everything is a sham.
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.'
A familiar phenomenon for Russian watchers is in full swing: 'whataboutism', where any criticism of the Russian elite is met with a 'well, what about...' response, framing the critic as a hypocrite representing exactly that which they criticize—sending any dialogue back to the level of squabbling.
'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.
The way the Kremlin has always reacted to reports about corruption or arbitrary police rule, or the state of Russia's penal institutions, is by generating similar reports about the West. Whatever the other party says the answer is always the same: 'Look who's talking.' This age-old technique, dubbed 'whataboutism', is in essence an appeal to hypocrisy; its only purpose is to discredit the opponent, not to refute the original argument.
This posture is a defense tactic, the Kremlin's way of adapting to a new post-Cold War geopolitical reality. 'Whataboutism' was a popular tactic even back in Soviet days, for example, but objectivity wasn't.
This particular brand of changing the subject is called 'whataboutism' – a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet Union and, later, Russia.
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."'
This form of 'whataboutism' has been rife under Mr. Putin – he often responds to criticism of Russia by suggesting that the United States is worse.
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.
Whataboutism is the most popular tactic against foreign critics; 'how dare you criticise Azerbaijan, get your own house in order!'
What about how beastly the United States has been to the indigenous Hawaiians? What about all the Filipinos killed by Americans? What about the conquest of the northern half of Mexico? What about the ghastly friendships the United States has cultivated over the years in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua? What about the poor Palestinians? What about all the seedy allies the United States is taking on in its so-called War on Terror?
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 —?'
'Whataboutism' was a favourite tactic of Soviet propagandists during the old Cold War. Any criticism of the Soviet Union's internal aggression or external repression was met with a 'what about?' some crime of the West, from slavery to the Monroe doctrine.
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.
'what-about-ism', a time-worn propaganda technique used by the Soviet government in which criticism is deflected by cries of 'but what about?'
Russian propaganda destroys meaning. They pursue several tactics including the false moral equivalences of "whataboutism", polluting the information space
Whataboutistm: a rhetorical defense that alleges hypocrisy from the accuser. ... it allows the Kremlin a moment of whataboutism, a favorite, Soviet-era appeal to hypocrisy: Russia is not that bad, you see, because other countries have also committed various misdeeds, and what about those?
whataboutism, the debate tactic demanding that questions about morally indefensible acts committed by your side be deflected with pettifogging discussion of unrelated sins committed by your opponent's side.
In stark contrast with his predecessors for high office, he also regularly traffics in 'whataboutism', a Soviet-honed method of changing the conversation.
In stark contrast with his predecessors for high office, he also regularly traffics in 'whataboutism', a Soviet-honed method of changing the conversation. Whenever human rights abuses or the trampling of freedoms abroad is raised, he shifts to the real or perceived shortcomings of the United States.
In the depths of the Cold War, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were locked in a global battle of ideas about how governments should treat their people and what political forms were best at delivering peace and prosperity, a particular style of argument became popular and was given the ironic name, 'whataboutism'. ... During the Cold War, whataboutism was generally the province of Soviet spokesmen and their defenders in the West.
Russia's president is already a master of 'whataboutism' – indeed, it is practically a national ideology.
Those wishing to understand Putin's linguistic gymnastics should look up 'whataboutism'. The term emerged at the height of the Cold War and described a favorite tactic of Soviet propagandists – the tendency to deflect any criticism of the Soviet Union by saying 'what about' a different situation or problem in the West. As Putin's language suggests, the practice is alive and well in today's Russia. Whataboutism is a way of shutting down discussion, discouraging critical thinking, and opposing open debate. It is a key feature of Russian politics these days.
Whataboutism's efficacy decreased for a certain period of time, in no small part because many of the richest targets (like the Jim Crow racial segregation laws) were reformed out of existence, but it has made something of a rebound over the past few years.
In Russia, screaming 'fake news' as a response to any criticism has an older relative in 'whataboutism' — a rhetorical fallacy favored by both Soviet and modern Russian propaganda, where Moscow's actions are justified by references to real or perceived crimes and slights by the Kremlin's foes abroad.
During the Cold War, such 'whataboutism' was used by the Kremlin to counter any criticism of Soviet policy with retorts about American slavery or British imperialism. The strategy remains an effective rhetorical weapon to this day.
when you try to point out those inconsistencies or catch him red-handed lying, there's no point because he'll evade your question, he knows that he can just drown you in meaningless factoids or false moral equivalencies or by using what is called 'whataboutism'.
'whataboutism', a disingenuous message designed to deflect criticism of its own actions rather than present real criticism.
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.
As for 'whataboutism', Trump himself champions these kinds of cynical arguments about our country – not Russia.
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.
This particular brand of changing the subject is called 'whataboutism' – a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet Union and, later, Russia.
The way the Kremlin has always reacted to reports about corruption or arbitrary police rule, or the state of Russia's penal institutions, is by generating similar reports about the West. Whatever the other party says the answer is always the same: 'Look who's talking.' This age-old technique, dubbed 'whataboutism', is in essence an appeal to hypocrisy; its only purpose is to discredit the opponent, not to refute the original argument.
Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.
'Whataboutism' was a favourite tactic of Soviet propagandists during the old Cold War. Any criticism of the Soviet Union's internal aggression or external repression was met with a 'what about?' some crime of the West, from slavery to the Monroe doctrine.
'Whataboutism' was a favourite tactic of Soviet propagandists during the old Cold War. Any criticism of the Soviet Union's internal repression or external aggression was met by asking 'what about' some crime of the West, from slavery to the Monroe doctrine. In the era when political prisoners rotted in Siberia and you could be shot for trying to leave the socialist paradise, whataboutism was little more than a debating tactic. Most people inside the Soviet Union, particularly towards the end, knew that their system was based on lies and murder.
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.
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.
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.'
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, the debate tactic demanding that questions about morally indefensible acts committed by your side be deflected with pettifogging discussion of unrelated sins committed by your opponent's side.
'whataboutism', a disingenuous message designed to deflect criticism of its own actions rather than present real criticism.
Moral relativism, 'whataboutism', has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes. For a US president to employ it against his own country is tragic. Trump repeating Putin's words—and nearly Stalin's—by calling the press the enemy of the people, has repercussions around the world.
One of the most trusted Soviet techniques during the Cold War came to be known in the West as 'what-about-ism'. Faced with an accusation, for example that the Soviet Union worked political dissidents to death in prison camps, the propagandist would respond: well, what about those black men being forced to work on chain gangs in the South? This was effective, because by the time anyone had explained that the two are not, in fact, morally equivalent, the technique had done its work, changing the subject away from the gulag.
Russian diplomats have been lately criticized for restoring the Soviet habit of 'whataboutism'
What about how beastly the United States has been to the indigenous Hawaiians? What about all the Filipinos killed by Americans? What about the conquest of the northern half of Mexico? What about the ghastly friendships the United States has cultivated over the years in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua? What about the poor Palestinians? What about all the seedy allies the United States is taking on in its so-called War on Terror?
Whataboutistm: a rhetorical defense that alleges hypocrisy from the accuser. ... it allows the Kremlin a moment of whataboutism, a favorite, Soviet-era appeal to hypocrisy: Russia is not that bad, you see, because other countries have also committed various misdeeds, and what about those?
'Whataboutism'. This was a term originally coined to describe Soviet propaganda during the Cold War about the 'real democracy' in the USSR and the hypocrisy in the West. All criticisms about the Soviet condition would be dismissed by pointing to flaws and double standards in the West, real or perceived, and asking 'What about this?' 'What about that?' The real issue at stake, that the USSR was a brutal dictatorship, was never addressed.
In stark contrast with his predecessors for high office, he also regularly traffics in 'whataboutism', a Soviet-honed method of changing the conversation.
In the depths of the Cold War, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were locked in a global battle of ideas about how governments should treat their people and what political forms were best at delivering peace and prosperity, a particular style of argument became popular and was given the ironic name, 'whataboutism'. ... During the Cold War, whataboutism was generally the province of Soviet spokesmen and their defenders in the West.
During the Cold War, such 'whataboutism' was used by the Kremlin to counter any criticism of Soviet policy with retorts about American slavery or British imperialism. The strategy remains an effective rhetorical weapon to this day.
Those wishing to understand Putin's linguistic gymnastics should look up 'whataboutism'. The term emerged at the height of the Cold War and described a favorite tactic of Soviet propagandists – the tendency to deflect any criticism of the Soviet Union by saying 'what about' a different situation or problem in the West. As Putin's language suggests, the practice is alive and well in today's Russia. Whataboutism is a way of shutting down discussion, discouraging critical thinking, and opposing open debate. It is a key feature of Russian politics these days.
Whataboutism's efficacy decreased for a certain period of time, in no small part because many of the richest targets (like the Jim Crow racial segregation laws) were reformed out of existence, but it has made something of a rebound over the past few years.
This posture is a defense tactic, the Kremlin's way of adapting to a new post-Cold War geopolitical reality. 'Whataboutism' was a popular tactic even back in Soviet days, for example, but objectivity wasn't.
Since the Cold War, Moscow has engaged in a political points-scoring exercise known as 'whataboutism' used to shut down criticism of Russia's own rights record by pointing out abuses elsewhere. All criticism of Russia is invalid, the idea goes, because problems exist in other countries too.
Putin dodged, just as a trained KGB officer would do. He even engaged in the favorite Kremlin 'whataboutism'
In Russia, screaming 'fake news' as a response to any criticism has an older relative in 'whataboutism' — a rhetorical fallacy favored by both Soviet and modern Russian propaganda, where Moscow's actions are justified by references to real or perceived crimes and slights by the Kremlin's foes abroad.
Disinformation and 'whataboutism' undoubtedly feature strongly in Russian state-sponsored media content
Russia combines Soviet-era 'whataboutism' and Chekist 'active measures' with a wised-up, post-modern smirk that says that everything is a sham.
Russian propaganda destroys meaning. They pursue several tactics including the false moral equivalences of "whataboutism", polluting the information space
A familiar phenomenon for Russian watchers is in full swing: 'whataboutism', where any criticism of the Russian elite is met with a 'well, what about...' response, framing the critic as a hypocrite representing exactly that which they criticize—sending any dialogue back to the level of squabbling.
This form of 'whataboutism' has been rife under Mr. Putin – he often responds to criticism of Russia by suggesting that the United States is worse.
This is another throwback to the Cold War, and one Putin himself is fond of, called 'Whataboutism'. The essence of Whataboutism is to turn any complaint about Russia into an accusation that whatever it might be doing, the West is doing and has done worse. Despite the constant protestations that the Cold War is over, these attempts to turn criticism of the Kremlin back on the critics are often nothing more than a Putin-era version of anti-anti-Communism.
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.
Indeed, Putin's near-default response to criticism of how he runs Russia is whataboutism – a technique used by Soviet propagandists to deflect criticism from the West.
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…?'
'what-about-ism', a time-worn propaganda technique used by the Soviet government in which criticism is deflected by cries of 'but what about?'
The Financial Times described the network's nonstop anti-U.S. coverage as 'whataboutism'—as in sure, Russia has problems, but what about the States? ... In 2016, RT America at last began proving its usefulness to the Russian government. The outlet remained as second-rate as ever, but during an election campaign governed by populist rage, anti-Establishment whataboutism had fresh appeal.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin employed the tried-and-true tactic of 'whataboutism'.
In stark contrast with his predecessors for high office, he also regularly traffics in 'whataboutism', a Soviet-honed method of changing the conversation. Whenever human rights abuses or the trampling of freedoms abroad is raised, he shifts to the real or perceived shortcomings of the United States.
Trump also engaged in 'what-aboutism': 'With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special counsel appointed!' he tweeted twice in three hours.
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.
when you try to point out those inconsistencies or catch him red-handed lying, there's no point because he'll evade your question, he knows that he can just drown you in meaningless factoids or false moral equivalencies or by using what is called 'whataboutism'.
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.
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.
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
As for 'whataboutism', Trump himself champions these kinds of cynical arguments about our country – not Russia.
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.
«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.
Instead, apologetic Ukrainian polemists regularly react to criticism by domestic and foreign observers with, what was known during Soviet times, as 'whataboutism': What about Polish whitewashing of the past? What about Israel's selective memory? What about crimes by other national liberation movements?
"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'.
