Please keep this and other canned arguments off HN. They're typically used as reflexes to try to stop discussion, which isn't in the spirit of intellectual curiosity. If a comment is bad, explain specifically what's bad about it, or downvote/flag as appropriate.
"Whataboutism" is a strange case because the name is catchy and sounds convincing, but it's a fallacy. Comparables are relevant. Humans evaluate things by comparing them.
Pointing out inconsistencies is also relevant because it adds context to an argument. The same thing can appear completely different depending on the context it's surrounded by. Negotiating context (what's included vs. excluded) is a critical aspect of debate, not something that can be shut down with just a word.
Adding information can be perfectly legitimate, or it can be distracting or misleading. In the latter case the proper response is to explain specifically why, not play a wild card like "whataboutism" which basically says "I determine the context and you're not allowed to change it." That amounts to power to control an entire discussion.
Previous explanations at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20338307 and links back from there. I particularly like the analogy to programming languages, because it illustrates the issue in a non-political context (though static vs. dynamic is about as intense a flamewar topic is it gets in programming discussions).
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
"Whataboutism" is a strange case because the name is catchy and sounds convincing, but it's a fallacy. Comparables are relevant. Humans evaluate things by comparing them.
Pointing out inconsistencies is also relevant because it adds context to an argument. The same thing can appear completely different depending on the context it's surrounded by. Negotiating context (what's included vs. excluded) is a critical aspect of debate, not something that can be shut down with just a word.
Adding information can be perfectly legitimate, or it can be distracting or misleading. In the latter case the proper response is to explain specifically why, not play a wild card like "whataboutism" which basically says "I determine the context and you're not allowed to change it." That amounts to power to control an entire discussion.
Previous explanations at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20338307 and links back from there. I particularly like the analogy to programming languages, because it illustrates the issue in a non-political context (though static vs. dynamic is about as intense a flamewar topic is it gets in programming discussions).
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...