Whataboutery

Lately, it has been hard to continue any dialogue, on social media (Facebook, Twitter,WhatsApp) . If the topic is lynchings, the response is, what about Kashmiri Pandits who suffered at the hand of muslims, or the historic atrocities. If the topic is economic issues due to demonetization or corruption, the reaction is, what about all the ghapalas Congress engaged in, or Lalu or some other person, party engaged in. If a person points at the atrocities on animals, or refugees in need of help, the reaction is, what about these other groupings of people? Why wouldn’t you comment on that?

This particular way of arguing, whataboutery, does not move dialogue. Here is a definition of whataboutery from Wikitionary:

1. Protesting at hypocrisy; responding to criticism by accusing one’s opponent of similar or worse faults.
2. Protesting at inconsistency; refusing to act in one instance unless similar action is taken in other similar instances.

This is an ‘Ad Hominum Tu Quoque’ type of fallacy , Tu Quoque literally translated as ‘you also’. Instead of refuting or engaging with the argument put forth, the focus is on labeling the commentor with hipocracy.

Whataboutery does not move dialogue, so how do we teach people how to argue productively? Looking back to see the influences in my life; I learnt about fallacies in my Logic class in 11th grade. It might be the basis of how I learnt to argue well, or how I learnt to write well, building on arguments to reach a desired point. But then again, I remember one of my classmates being frustrated with the subject as she could not make head or tail of the T,F table or the list of fallacies and their definitions. Much of it was taught like math is taught in many Indian schools. Learn the steps and just follow them without a thought. Nobody expected any particular effect on the way we think, argue, spot faulty arguments etc. Other subjects most definitely did not teach us how to argue a point well or write an opinion piece based on solid facts and reasoning. No wonder I keep getting papers to review at masters and even PhD level that are a hodgepodge of borrowed ideas than a well formed argument. But I diagress.

Coming back to the problem of public discourse – I realize now that my basic assumption that people will engage in productive dialogue if they were provided with the tools, might be faulty. The entire reason to resort to whataboutery is to shut up the person whose views do not match your world view. So the problem is much more funadamental.

The basis for the need to shut up another is because of the perception that my way is the right way and there can be none other. Some of it is because of the current polarizing discourse. Much of it I think is also because of the subpar education in schools and colleges that do not teach or expose students to the diverse experiences, histories of people. The ability to acknowledge and celebrate (not tolerate) others’ way of being and ability to listen, reflect deeply, and graciously agree to disagree – these are the skills we need to teach kids in homes and in schools.