What About "What-About-Ism"?

 
I have recently been accused of using "what about ism" as a rhetorical device and I am told in no uncertain terms that it is an unacceptable technique.  This blog post will discuss some of the issues as I attempt to understand what my position will be on this matter.  I may have to change my position after this exercise.

There are several types of "what about ism", I propose, and each of these deserves their own discussion.

In the first case, someone argues "what about <blah>" where <blah> is an assertion of some fact that turns out not be true.  Someone might excuse Donald Trump's criminal activities by saying "What about Hillary Clinton?  She had non-consensual sex with children in pizza parlors".  Obviously this did not happen and so this kind of "what about ism" is or should be invalid.

The second case might be called "the false equivalency".  In this case, someone might argue that sure, Donald Trump abused women but "Hillary Clinton once got a traffic ticket for speeding.  What about that?".   It may be that Hillary was once caught speeding, I have no idea, but it is irrelevant.  Again, easy to dismiss.

The third situation is more problematic.  In this case, the case is made that whoever is making the accusations are guilty of the same crimes or worse and has no moral right to make the accusations.  I see this kind of problem every day of the week, and it is a variation of the aphorism "Let those who are without sin throw the first stone".

Finally a variation on the above is less about who has created the worst sin but merely to point out that invariably the accusation is made of "the other".  Here one might say something along the lines of "Maybe it would be best if you led by example".

I am sorry to tell you this but I dont actually care whether you object to "what about ism".  The third and fourth cases are terribly relevant to the topic at hand which is the middle east and the palestinian mandate in particular.  It bores me that most people dont even know enough of the history here to be minimally competent.  The details for that mess will have to go into another blog post.  But lets start with one of my favorites.  I hear that Israel should return the "occupied territories", well maybe they should and maybe they shouldn't, but if you are American may I suggest you start by returning your occupied territories.  Start with New York, Virginia, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and California.

If you dont know what I mean then dont think you are qualified to discuss any of these issues with me.  But have a nice day.