Åpne hovedmenyen

Whataboutism (også kjent som whataboutery[1][2]) er en diskusjons- og propagandateknikk som har til hensikt å diskreditere en motstanders påstand ved å rette en anklage tilbake om hykleri, uten direkte å motbevise eller avkrefte deres argument. Teknikken er forbundet med sovjetisk[3] og russisk propaganda,[4] og også i diskusjoner som omhandler Israel og Palestina. Da det ble rettet kritikk, f.eks. fra USA mot Sovjetunionen om brudd på menneskerettighetene i landet, kunne det sovjetiske svaret være: «Hva med USA? Dere lynsjer de svarte.» («what about…»).[5] Ehud Barak kritiserte i en kronikk i New York Times Benjamin Netanyahu for å drive whataboutism i sin polemikk.[6]

Whataboutism kan være en form for ad hominem-argument for eksempel i form av «ja, men hvor var du da...» eller «hvorfor kritisere bare A og ikke B».[7] Filosofen Antonsen og Hjortland skriver at whataboutism fungerer som en avledningsmanøver.[8]

Whataboutism er relevant blant annet for presedens i jus og annet. I en domstolsforhandling kan lignende saker trukket frem for både straffbarhet og straffeutmåling, så vel som referanse for frikjenning.[trenger referanse]

ReferanserRediger

  1. ^ Ganguly, M. (2017). Engaging in Whataboutery instead of Protecting Rights. Brown J. World Aff., 24, 39. «This term does not refer to protesting inconsistencies by making a reasoned argument that presents opposing facts. Rather, whataboutery is used as a much more sinister challenge to human rights: the practice wherein perpetrators of violations, or their supporters, do not deny the abuses, but instead justify them and shout down criticism by citing the wrongdoings of their victims. All too often, they absolve collective punishment through whataboutery. »
  2. ^ Little, A., & Rogers, J. B. (2017). The politics of ‘whataboutery’: The problem of trauma trumping the political in conflictual societies. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(1), 172-187. «‘Whataboutery’ is a term used to refer to the propensity of political actors to allude to the victims, or families of victims, who have suffered great loss in violent events as a means of suggesting that their deprivation is more significant than and transcends subsequent political development. In Northern Ireland, for example, where so much political discourse has been conducted as a ‘zero-sum game’, it is not unusual to hear political actors speak of acts of violence to negate political developments which they oppose. The lament of ‘what about Bloody Sunday?’ or ‘what about Enniskillen?’ became commonplace through the process of change and subsequent political developments.»
  3. ^ Gessen, K. (2014). What's the Matter with Russia: Putin and the Soviet Legacy. Foreign Affairs, 93, 182. «When Putin wants to appeal to Russian patriotism, he invokes Stalin's triumph in World War II rather than the achievements of the less tyrannical leaders who followed Stalin. More broadly, Russian political elites have clearly decided that they will no longer beat themselves up for the sins of the past -- after all, other countries have sinned, too, they like to note, in the style of classic Soviet "whataboutism."»
  4. ^ Szostek, J. (2017). The power and limits of Russia’s strategic narrative in Ukraine: The role of linkage. Perspectives on Politics, 15(2), 379-395. «Disinformation and “whataboutism” undoubtedly featurestronglyinRussianstate-sponsoredmediacontent, but from this it would be wrong to conclude that the Russian leadership has no interest in persuading international audiences and seeks only to “dismiss, distort, distract and dismay.”47 For years, a highly consistent narrative has run through the content of Russian statecontrolled media and official statements. The narrative problematizes American or Western “hypocrisy” and “interference”; blames these traits for global instability; and advocates a “multipolar” world as the optimal solution, in which non-Western states such as Russia would balance American power.48 »
  5. ^ «Whataboutism». The Economist. Besøkt 17. desember 2017. 
  6. ^ Barak, Ehud (1. desember 2017). «Opinion | We Must Save Israel From Its Government». New York Times (engelsk). Besøkt 9. august 2018. 
  7. ^ Borovali, M. (2018). Ad hominem argumentation in politics. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 44(4), 426-436.«The above discussed consequences can also be encountered following a similar form of ad hominem response. The reply to the criticism or condemnation in such cases is formulated in a way that completes the following rhetorical question: “where were you when...?” Here, the critic is accused of having been silent in the face of comparable act(s) in the past. Having omitted to condemn previous similar instances, she is now accused of engaging in a certain “motivated selectiveness.”2 The current situation is argued to be “conveniently” selected for condemnation, thereby suggesting an inconsistent implementation of the principles that should underly the moral stance of the critic. The critic is accused of choosing the instance in question for denunciation while disregarding similar acts which should also be objectionable from the expressed standpoint of the critic. In light of this “selectiveness,” it is held that the denouncer is engaging in hypocrisy, as the adopted moral principles are not wholeheartedly embraced in reality. »
  8. ^ «Ja? Du, da?». morgenbladet.no. 10. oktober 2018. Besøkt 16. oktober 2018. «Avledningsmanøveren: Når statsministeren selv er gjenstand for kritikk, så avleder hun ved å hevde at noen andre også har gjort noe galt.»