13 thoughts on “‘Whataboutism’ is a Nonsensical Propaganda Term Used to Defend the Failed Status Quo”

  1. In many of your examples, I see a third reason for the tactic (the first two being to self-reflect and to deflect attention) – it’s about establishing a norm. “Why’s it so bad that X did Y when we, the good guys, do Y as well?”

    Am I off?

    “It’s also the sort of desperate and childish propaganda tactic you’d expect during late-stage imperial decline.”

    That’s gold!

    Reply
  2. When are people in general going to get thier collective heads out of thier proverbial arses and realize we ALL living with the black shroud pulled over ( what we “perceive” to be our intilectual perception of reality “ )our babaling in about politics is hilarious!! …. in the imortal words of AFFRICANBAMBATTA” some 20 years ago “ its a world destruction your life ain’t nothing the human race is becoming a disgrace …. the rich get richer the are getting poorer facist government chauvinistic fools !! “People who ramble on at nausium about “ Government are simplistic naive fools “”!! THEY ARE THE ESSENCE OF CORRUPTION !!! What’s not to get ????? Hello !!

    Reply
  3. It’s all Whataboutism. Some of it’s just more moral and ethical than some other. It’s all changing the subject. It’s all an attempt to deflect, to not respond to an argument. But in the case of using the flaws of others to shed light on your own, it’s more moral and responsible. It’s what we as a nation AND AS INDIVIDUALS, should do. That last is a little tougher, isn’t it?

    Reply
  4. Megyn Kelly actually used that term in her Putin Interview … He made her look like intellectual imbecile …

    Reply
  5. Megyn Kelly versus Vladamir Putin in a 1984 “double-think” contest is like Goober Pyle versus Max Planck in a theoretical physics debate.

    Gotta see that!

    Reply
  6. Reminds me of another infantile online catchphrase “haters gotta hate” which is deployed to shut up dissenting opinions.

    Reply
  7. Thank you, much needed intelligent moderation of yet another example of kindergarteners pretending to be in graduate school. The irony to me is that those who accuse others of “whaddaboutism” (“hey, you’re changing the subject!”) are actually the ones who are trying to proactively change the subject, to intentionally avoid scrutiny by shouting “hey, look at that jerk over there” so that no one sees what it is that they (or their allies/controllers) are doing right here. “Hey look at that Russian meddling!” may be an important warning coming from, say, a well respected human rights group or grassroots democracy watchdog. But coming from someone who is constantly meddling in other’s affairs, the appropriate response is “wait a minute, why is this crook calling out that crook over there?”

    It is embarrassing to see just how easy it is to take advantage all of the fears and traumas of the population by creating a Bogeyman in Trump as the manifestation of every thing that’s wrong with the world (and there really is lots wrong with the world), and then manipulate that terrorized population into supporting pretty much anything you want to do, so long as it seems to work against the Bogeyman. People have so completely swallowed the manipulation-pill of “IT’S THE TRUMP, STUPID” that they support anything if it’s claimed that it will “stop him.” I’m very worried about the insidious power plays that are being successfully carried out with this strategy.

    Reply
  8. It’s pretty weak to imply that whataboutism is one-sided. It’s a key for all tribes.

    What about “Bengahzi and Clinton”? Lock her up, because that is waht will help America more thatn infrastructure or middle-class tax cuts.

    What about “Muslim Terrorist” but forget about domestic terrorist.

    What about illegal immigrants, but keep those Au pairs, cheap tech workers, fruit pickers, etc. coming.

    What about our high corporate tax rates but ignore that corporate tax as a percetn of GDP has been on a downtrend due to loopholes.

    I agree with Michael’s in-the-moment assessment of Trump’s “you think our country is so innocent?” comment.. However, given the fact that civilian casaulties form “precision” drones strikes have gone up under Trump,it seems like Trump wasn’t saying that the US was also guilty, but instead saying that Putin was justified (innocent).

    Reply
    • > it seems like Trump wasn’t saying that the US was also guilty, but instead saying that Putin was justified (innocent).

      In a sense he did.

      “You shall not kill”
      If someone is shooting you or your family, should you stand and pray?
      Or should you shoot at the shooter?
      But you can not shoot the shooter – “You shall not kill”!

      So, in practical means, one that dies first justifies enother party doing the same.

      Then “moral inequivaence” dogma – anything is good when done by US and is bad when done by non-US – is exactly the request to “fight with knife in gunfight”.

      Then what Trump said was actualyl justification, he perhaps said “Putin can have gun too in such an environment”

Leave a Reply