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". In some cases, it might be best if the accuser led by example.
There are far too many examples of this. It would be tiresome to go over them.
So what is the conclusion about "what about ism"? My conclusion is that when used correctly it is a valid way to point out hypocrisy. Others wont like that and think that it is just a technique for deflecting from the issue at hand. Both may be true.
Picture courtesy of Mid Journey
No comments:
Post a Comment