TL’DR, both the concept of whataboutism, and the calling out the use of “whataboutism”, are paradoxes that go around and around in circles.
So, the biggest argument for whataboutism seems to be “it doesn’t matter how bad your opponent is, you should strive to be better if you claim to be in the right”.
Which, okay, but pragmatically, what the calling out of whataboutism actually does is shut down the side “committing” it, while implicitly giving the other side a free pass of “oh yeah, they’re bad in this way too. Don’t care tho, this is all about you.” So the side committing whataboutism is supposed to address or defend it immediately, but opponent gets a free pass to not do anything about it. But if the argument from both sides are supposed to be “we’re good, you’re bad”, wouldn’t the calling out of whataboutism actually be an acknowledgement that you’re not better because you acknowledge that one, you do ? But the intent of your calling out of whataboutism was to show that they’re not better. And if your intent is to call out not the misdeeds themselves, but your opponent’s bad faith argument, well you just committed the same bad faith argument, so you still don’t have a leg to stand on. See how it just goes in circles, never accomplishing anything?
Finally, if the definition of whataboutism is accusing your opponent of a similar misdeed as a cover for not addressing your own, by calling out whataboutism, aren’t you also committing whataboutism? Because at that point, you have called out your opponent’s misdeed (the one they tried to cover with the first case of whataboutism), but are not addressing your own misdeed. So by that logic, calling out whataboutism is, or is at least functionally identical to, whataboutism.
So it seems to me that calling out whataboutism is pointless, but what about the initial case of whataboutism? Reminder that we’re still arguing about which side is better: Well, in all the socialist discourse involving such logic that I’ve seen, whataboutism is not used as evidence that the socialist side is better as most assume it is. Rather, it’s to point out that the opposing side is at least as bad as what they’re accusing us of. And to that end, it works. An analogy I thought of is balancing a math equation: one side adds one, and in response, the other side subtracts one; the net change is zero and the equation stays balanced.
Also, whataboutism is often (usually) not the end of the rebuttal, but the opening to an actual comparison between the two misdeeds. Example: “you’re imprisoning dissidents” followed by “and you’re lynching negroes”. Ignoring for now the fact that the West also shoots dissidents, or the fact that another user on here actually went into archives of Soviet documents and could not find an actual instance of them mentioning the US lynching black people, are the two things mentioned equal? The socialist would point out that the “dissidents” are very rarely people that simply spoke ill of the Soviet government, but nazis (both neo and actual, like, captured from Germany), who have spread patently false information and propaganda with the intent to overthrow the government (illegal in literally every country when committed against its own government), or have actually attempted to overthrow the government. Whereas with lynching black people… there is actually no valid defense outside of good ol’ racism. Also, there is a stark difference between putting someone who actually committed serious crimes in a gulag, rarely for life, versus a bunch of racists violently murdering someone they don’t like the colour of. See how the initial whataboutism has expanded to an actual argument on which side is actually worse in this regard? It’s the same with things like Russia invading Ukraine vs. the US invading… take your pick of a good portion of the globe. Or, China censoring stuff vs. the US censoring stuff, and how their methods, goals, and extent differ. Whereas with calling out whataboutism, that’s usually where it ends for the side that did it, complete with the assumption that both things are equally as bad (or their side is better but with no elaboration or defense), and that the other side just made themselves worse by using whataboutism.
Anyway, these are mostly the ramblings of a simultaneously sleep deprived and caffeine high brain, after a long day of lamenting capitalism and longing for socialism. I’m not a philosopher, so I could be totally off base here. Let me know what you thought of this little analysis. I hope to do more as I continue to deepen my understanding of socialism/communism and the discourse that goes along with it.
On whataboutism I have to say the following. Most of the time I have seen somebody accusing somebody of a whataboutism is a following scenario:
Person 1: A is better than B because B is doing something bad (and A is not). [e.g. “Russia is the one shelling schools and hospitals. Enough said!”]
Person 2: But A is also doing the same bad thing. (How are they better?) [e.g. “Ukraine has been shelling Donetsk schools and hospitals for 8 years.”]
Petson 1: WhAtAbOuTiSm!1!
In here calling whataboutism is a conversation killer to a well defined point (namely, that A does in fact not hold moral highground regarding the said actions of B). Here whataboutism is not used as a fallacy, or as a defense, it is in fact used as a counterargument, and there is nothing wrong with that.
That’s funny. I mostly see it when: Person 1: Russia is bad because they invaded their neighbor.
Person 2: The US did racism. OR P erson 2: Ukraine is Nazis.
In this case, neither thing person 2 says addresses that invading your neighbor in order to take control of to for territory is kind of a bad, imperialist thing to do.
you invade and kill nazis, russia should be one of the countries allowed to do this given their history with those freaks.