Sean O'Conaill, "Letter to Editor", The Irish Times, What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty Parnell?" Neither is the Church immune: "The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. Every call to stop is answered in the same way: "What about the Treaty of Limerick the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 Lenadoon?". ![]() ![]() with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the "enemy", and therefore the justice of the Provisionals' cause: "What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?". These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. Zimmer cites a 1974 letter by history teacher Sean O'Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about "the Whatabouts", people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy: OriginsĪccording to lexicographer Ben Zimmer, the term originated in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. The term whataboutism is a portmanteau of what and about, is synonymous with whataboutery, and means to twist criticism back on the initial critic. īoth whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect. The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood. Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance ( bothsidesism). (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?"). Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. ![]() The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic ( red herring). From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |