he is right, but raising whataboutism isn't an argument. It's absolutely valid to point out immoral doings of the very people who are doing the accusations. Otherwise, it's a race to make the accusations and the first one wins - everyone else is whataboutism. You can easily see who came up with the inane whatboutism - the one who did a whole lot of crimes in the past, and wants to judge others now for similar crimes.
not the parent, but the others who responded with "whataboutism". Holding one accountable to the same standards that he holds others accountable isn't wrong. I refuse to take anyone who raises the bogey of "whataboutism" seriously. It has the same validity as someone responding to an argument that it's wrong to make that argument at this time of the day.
This is the motte-and-bailey fallacy. When people cry whataboutism, it is because the person they're crying it at pointed out their hypocrisy. Then when they get called out on it, they fall back to saying it's a method of deflection.
You example doesn't make sense for this situation. It's between two people and things they did. However, The OP isn't the US government and hasn't committed war crimes (I assume).
Also your example isn't even whataboutism which is defined as "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."
What other accusation or difficult question is being raised in your example? It's person A asking for money he lent to person B back and pointing out what when person B lent him money he paid it back.
Holding another group or person to the same/similar standard is often called "whataboutism" though. I will concede that that is probably misplaced (and malicious) application and not what was originally intended.
That's why claims of hypocrisy against the other party, backed up with examples of the same behavior in other situations from them instead of you, can be cheaply dismissed as "whataboutism".
Using whataboutism to deflect a claim of hypocrisy is wrong, I'm completly with you on that. However to be even more firm about this, regardless of the intentions of whataboutism, you can't hold citizens of a country responsible for the actions of their government unless they were directly involved.
However... visa V mastercard , using whataboutism is valid in this situation. Bringing up something the US government did in the past to silence the criticism of a US citizen to another countries actions is wrong.
EDIT: Just another thought about your example. There isn't even hypocrisy. Person B lent money to A and A paid it back, then Person A lent money to B and B didn't pay it back.
It is. I could see point if the people from USA seriously cleaned their own house before attacking others. Anything else comes out just as malicious. Maybe they should start with privacy for everyone and getting rid of slavery...
So he just has to be a member of one? How many meetings does he have to attend?, how much larping and dinner theatre does he have to do before he is allowed to criticize other countries without the burden of things past and current governments have done?
Are you bloody serious? For real real not for play play? Some other poster made the comment that "whataboutism" is deflection. Considering every country has done some amount of bad things, either in the past or now, according to you and other parents, no one would be allowed to criticize any other country's govermnet. That's the ultimate deflection.
It's not hypocrisy because the poster has never been the president of the United States, the person who authorizes military operations. I'm also going to go out on a limb an assume they haven't committed a war crime as soldier, commander, or any person who would be directly involved.
Whataboutism: "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue"
Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."
You can't be a hypocrite for something another person, group, or country has done. Even if you are a member of that grouping*. Notice how the definition clearly states "one's own behavior".
-----------------------------------------------
* I'm sure there's an exception here if you represent that group or control that group, like the CEO of a company or a spokesman. However just being a citizen of a country doesn't apply.*
