What Whataboutery?
One of the advantages of discussing controversial issues in public is witnessing how common heuristics and viral memes can corrupt our thinking.
No, making the case that President Trump is unfit for office—because of his fathomless dishonesty and corruption—is not an “ad hominem” attack.
No, referencing Hitler or the Nazis does not automatically invalidate one’s argument.
No, acknowledging the value of expertise isn’t the same as “appealing to authority.”
And no, atheism isn’t “just another kind of faith.”
It’s alarming to realize that for every listener who proudly delivers a fake coup de grâce of this kind, there are likely thousands who silently believe the same thing.
In a recent podcast, I pointed out that Israel is held to a different ethical standard than any other nation—both in war and peace. To illustrate this, I contrasted the widespread outrage over Israel’s war in Gaza with the world’s relative indifference to other conflicts that are both far bloodier and less justifiable. In response, many accused me of engaging in “whataboutery”—defined by the OED as “the practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.”
Apparently, many listeners felt that I was bringing up other conflicts to deflect attention from the suffering in Gaza. But I had clearly acknowledged the enormity of Palestinian suffering, as well as the legitimacy of caring about it. The point I was making—which should concern everyone—is that our media and social media have been successfully weaponized, and the information landscape has become utterly biased against Israel. The only way to reveal this distortion is to point to other conflicts that are worse, by every objective measure, but are largely ignored.
If you're distressed by civilian casualties in Gaza, why not be even more concerned about the civil wars in Syria, Sudan, or Yemen, which have claimed many more innocent lives? And if U.S. complicity is what really troubles you—because we supply arms to Israel—why not be just as outraged when the U.S. bombs civilians directly?
Calling out double standards requires comparison. This isn’t “whataboutery.” It is how bias is revealed.
I just want to throw myself out there as a listener who completely agrees with you on the Israel Gaza conflict.
I worry as a society we're becoming less and less able to have nuanced conversations. Why do so few people fail to recognize the role that Hamas has played in this conflict? Or the role they play in all the civilian deaths now occuring?