cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
“Whataboutism.” Firefox flags the word as misspelled, but it’s just a new word and if you search it, you’ll find a lot of articles. It’s a controversial debate tactic in which you attempt to shift the focus from something you want to protect (or yourself) to something the other person wants to protect (or themselves).
A good example of this is when we say “Trump is in the Epstein files” and people on the right say “well so is Bill Clinton.” Except the left really doesn’t want to protect Slick Willy (or any child predator, for that matter) so it’s not a good whataboutism. Normally you would point to something good he’s done, but I can’t come up with any examples.
Eq0@literature.cafe 2 days ago
That would be a slightly different scenario. Here we have the accuser and the accused. Then the accused discredits the accuser by bringing in unrelated facts. As another commenter said, it’s an ad hominem attack. Whataboutism would be, in this context, answering “but Trump/Clinton/Julius Cesar did it too” implying (so it’s not that bad, they are worse than me)