Disgruntled Philosopher

Nov 21, 2022

Whataboutism and fun Latin phrases

Russia is invading Ukraine and brutalizing the people, BUT DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE US IMPERIALISM?! Qatar used slave labor that resulted in thousands of deaths of their workers, BUT DID YOU KNOW THE WEST PROFITS OFF SLAVE LABOR AS WELL?! Iran is evil, BUT DID YOU KNOW...that all these are excuses for inaction and only help those in power? Whataboutism, it's all the rage for those who want to live their lives free of accountability.

While logical fallacies don't determine the truth or falseness of an argument, they can help us learn how to think appropriately and avoid bullshit. Whataboutism is really the combination of ad hominem tu quoque and a red herring. What in the fuck are those? Well, let me explain:

Ad hominem tu quoque's literal translation is "to the man, you too." Essentially, it argues that because a person is or might be a hypocrite the point they're making is invalid. If a doctor tells you that smoking is bad for you and that you should stop smoking if you want to save your life, but then you see him smoking, a tu quoque reasoning would be, "Well then it must be okay that I smoke, or it must not matter that much."

Now, certainly there are times where a person's hypocrisy can absolutely negate their point. If an industrial lobbiest says that polluted water is safe to drink but then won't drink that water saying, "No, I'm not stupid, I won't drink that," then you might have reason to doubt the veracity of his claim that the water is safe to drink (this is a ). But in this case, the hypocrisy causes us to doubt the veracity of the claim itself - that drinking the water is safe. It makes us think that perhaps the person is lying and therefore we don't have a good reason to believe them. In short, every instance of pointing out a person's hypocrisy as a way to question or invalidate their claim isn't ad hominem tu quoque, but all tu quoque's will include pointing to a person's perceived hypocrisy.

A red herring, of course, is an irrelevant argument used to distract from the point. Anyone who has watched a political debate has witnessed a red herring, it is truly a fallacy that unites all political sides as everyone gets full use. "What is your plan to combat climate change?" "Yes, wonderful question, if you look at the violence in NY City..." And then everyone talks about the rising crime rate while ignoring the rising sea levels. A red herring is a great way to distract people from an important issue by redirecting them to a less important one.

And so we come to whataboutism - the US and NATO are critical of Russia's imperialist invasion of Ukraine. But the US experiment is itself an imperialist endeavor. Sea to shining sea required the taking of land, subjecting of people, genocide, etc. On an international scale the US has been engaged in some form of imperialism since the late 19th century. More recently, we invaded Iraq under the false claim of WMDs, we did commit war crimes there, and hundreds of thousands lost their lives. It was evil, it was wrong. But what does any of this have to do with Russia invading Ukraine? The US - really all nations - are correct to stand up against Russia's invasion of Ukraine because the invasion is wrong on its own merits. If anything, this should force Americans and others to examine their own actions, how their nations act, and rather than creating a hard "us vs them" mentality on Russia, acknowledging that Russia's imperialism is something we should be looking for in our own nations as well.

Even if the US and others have less-than-honorable motives in supporting Ukraine, even if it's for national interests or just to stick it to an international rival, that doesn't negate that they're right to stand against Russia. What Russia is doing is on its own merit wrong, therefore opposition to it is correct. Just like resistance to Nazi Germany by nations that were engaged in their own human rights abuses was still the right thing to do, resistance to Russia is right.

Qatar has benefited from actual slave labor, where thousands died to build a stadium. FIFA's stance of, "Well, Europe has done some shitty stuff" is FIFA's way of saying, "Fuck you, we want to make money." It's a red herring, it's ad hominem tu quoque, it's whataboutism. See, FIFA has something to profit by acting as though they have the moral high ground here; whataboutism is the argument of the weak, of the morally inept, of the opportunist. Has Europe done some shitty things? Oh, yeah, they're famous for it and time hasn't made Europe all that much better - look at how they treat refugees and immigrants, how 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants are still isolated from the greater European society. Look at how you have politicians in the UK saying they should just drown refugees trying to cross the Channel. Europe is pretty awful: But what the fuck does this have to do with Qatar?

Does Europe's awfulness justify Qatar being equally or more awful toward migrant workers/slaves? Does it justify Qatar's actions? Does it mean that Europe should just stay silent and let evil exist everywhere (while profiting from said evil)? Or, does it just mean that maybe Europeans and others should be more aware of their own flaws while also justifiably criticizing the flaws in Qatar?

See, we in the West have profited off immigrant exploitation. This is very true in the US where we allow immigrants in "to do the jobs Americans won't do." It's a fucking political talking point and no one bats an eye. Seemingly pro-immigrant politicians base their argument on, "Well, who else are we going to exploit?" But this doesn't mean we're wrong for criticizing Qatar for going hardcore in an approach that's similar to what we do - it just means we need to also be aware, criticize, and act against our own sins as well as the sins of others.

If we let hypocrisy silence us from speaking out against evil then the world would remain silent while evil reigned. We're all hypocrites to one degree or another. We all have planks in our eyes. We should support politicians and public figures when they take the right stance, but also point out where they've faltered. We should support a boycott of Qatar's World Cup, but should also support a boycott (or protests) of Tyson's or other domestic companies whose business model would make Christopher Columbus blush.

Never forget that those who engage in whataboutism have something to gain from you remaining silent. They can benefit from you being shamed into being quiet. Be it their own imperialist conquests or profiting off the exploitation of others. Just as there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, there's no purely ethical critique of a bad thing - at some level, it's always going to be hypocritical. That doesn't mean we should be silent, just that we should be louder and broaden the scope of who it is we're critiquing.