Tu Quoque?

I was once listening to the Joe Rogan Experience podcast between the host Joe Rogan and some right-wing pundit, and they were engaged in a heated discussion about some policy of the day (I don’t remember the podcast or the guest). The important takeaway was that when arguing the guest tried to break down Joe’s argument by bringing up “what about…”. To which Joe replied, that is a weak argument as it is a “whataboutism”.

Essentially, a “whataboutism” or a tu quoque fallacy is where an argument is discredited by showing hypocrisy within the argument to try and win the opponent. (I think they were talking about Trump’s character, and the guest asked what about Bill Clinton…to which Joe responded that’s a “whataboutism” and doesn’t have to do with the argument at hand.)

This is true, “whataboutism” may be considered a cheap shot to break down the point of an argument, but it takes eloquence, and maturity to stick to an issue at hand and not bring a “whataboutism”. But how bad are “whataboutisms”? Other than potentially putting an end to a conversation/argument (which may or may not be the point), “whataboutisms” reflect on the deeper reason why a person argues for the side they do.

If an argument is purely rational or based in fact then the facts ought to show a right and a wrong, yet, people will argue, on emotion, negating the facts, such that they argue perhaps that not enough was done. But people staunchly (and for conscious and unconscious reasons) stand by a point, even if they are wrong. Some people argue so that they can try to win an opponent, but, little do they realize that their doing so is moot, and doesn’t actually accomplish anything (particularly if you are arguing in politics). “Whataboutisms” therefore reveal why one party is emotionally attached to the point/side they are arguing.

If a person sees morally deplorable behavior as a reason to stick to one side of an argument, then they will argue based on “whataboutisms”. If a person’s position is rooted in history of people’s actions in general, then their opinion is likely shaped/formed by “whataboutisms”. Their position just feels right. They argue now and think later. This form of arguing is quite common, and is usually a sign of a more emotional argument than facts, or at least that the opponents reasons are rooted in emotion, and not necessarily entirely on fact.