I mentioned a huge spike of using "it is whataboutism!" as an "argument" when somebody began to ask uncomfortable questions.
What really happens when somebody asking "but what about ...?". It is a search for the pattern, attempt to find some logic in that clown world and determine the real rules of clowns actions and a measure of cognitive abilities of opponent.
When you study some system, you always looking for similarities and drawing a parallels. Analogies is one of the ways we study how things works. "So, if I rotate this thing clockwise, that parameter become larger - it is like a volume knob", "In that country, people take off hats entering building, should I do the same to be polite?" and so on. It is a basic thing of understanding, just like observation, building models and other things.
So, if you asking "OK, you stand for "your body, your choice", but what about forcing vaccines on others?" and get a "It is whataboutism!!!" - you meet with propagandist who don't want you to study out who he really is and what he is about really.
"whataboutism" is just like "antisemitism", "racism", "conspiracy theorism" and other keywords our enemy use to prevent finding out truth.
Interesting, that blaming with "whataboutism" appeared relatively recently, it could mean that older markers used for same purpose loosing it's efficiency, so they have to think out something new.
Whatever, don't fall to that shit, compare everything, search for similarities and fuck those who don't want you to know how things really works.
PS: In Russia "whataboutism!" sounds like "you don't understand, it is completely another thing!" and was heavily used by liberals and NWO shills. Now it is just a source of lulz, there even a lot of "standard" memes making fun on those who use that kind of "argument". Interesting, that in Western social media this thing appeared much later than in Russia.
I think whataboutism is being used wrong. For example if I bring up poor, and hungry people in America, and the answer is What about the poor and hungry people in Africa? Usually with a fix the poor and hungry in Africa before you worry about the poor and hungry in America.
People not liking that there are valid comparisons because they agree with one, and not the other is hypocrisy.
Really even this example is definitely not a reason for "whataboutism!" cry. Just think a little - why Africa is so poor? Is it a colonialism consequences or just Africans are not smart enough to feed themselves living on a very rich continent? Or may be there is another reason? Why there are hungry people in America at all? Is is a system or it's their own fault? What is the similarities between hungry in America and Africa? How they are differ?
Example is really a rabbit hole. :) Definitely "what about ..." is perfecly legal question.
As I understand, all that "feeding some people far far away" is mostly some fraud and money laundering or even worse.
But that does not make the question itself void.
Exactly.
It's the most classic example I could think of. Can you think of a more classic example of whataboutism?
a) the original (natural) pattern (perceivable inspiration) is offered wholly (process of dying) to each partial (living) within for imitation (aka adaptation to inspiration).
b) the artificial model (suggested information) is suggested by partial towards consent of another partial, which implies ignorance of whole (perceivable) for partial (suggested).
c) consenting to any suggestion (agreeing or disagreeing within it) causes a conflict (agreeing versus disagreeing) among all those consenting. This conflict is called LOG'IC, noun [Latin id; Gr. from reason, to speak.] - "the art of using reason well in our inquiries after truth, and the communication of it to others".
Reasoning represents artificial miscommunication about suggested information, while ignoring the real communication between perceivable inspiration and each one perceiving it from within.
d) the attempt to seek logic represents the temptation to reason about fiction, while ignoring reality. To seek implies to want (suggested); which implies ignoring need (perceivable). If one wants something; then one wants it from others; since nature already offers everything needed.
The choice to proclaim "I want" represents the temptation to want more than nature offers, which is all one needs to exist; to sustain self; to be within...
a) a question implies the want for a suggested answer, which shapes the mind (ment) to 'ARGUE, verb [Latin arguo, to show, accuse or convict.] - "to reason". Wanting vs not wanting the suggested answer represents the argument following ones consent to a suggested question.
b) the ongoing process of dying represents temptation (comfortable); while living within temptation represents the struggle (uncomfortable) to resist. What do you thing is more comfortable...ignoring what I wrote or struggling to grow comprehension about what I wrote about?
The foundation for clown world represents perceiving comedy (living) at the center of perceivable drama (process of dying); the few utilize suggestion to masquerade drama underneath comedy (clown make-up) for all those who ignore perceivable drama for suggested comedy.
Look into Shaiṭān; the great deceiver, who incites sin (temptation) by whispering to the heart (schadenfreude aka masquerading drama with comedy). The triliteral root š-ṭ-n ("distant, astray") implies the living center being drawn astray into the distant process of dying.
Living implies being the expressing effect within the impressing cause (process of dying). Being moved from inception towards death represents the natural order for those within. One doesn't need to determine the suggested rules by others; one is ruled by origin and in need of adaptation to the laws of nature.
How does one become a clown? By reacting to the reactions of others. The masquerade aims at vanity (want of substance to satisfy desire through others), while audience and entertainer are reacting to each other aka one enters + tames (entertain) the mind (ment) of others by gaining consent to suggested. One side desires suggestion; the other side desires consent to suggested.
Both sides respond to suggestion (reaction) instead of perception (action)...they both ignore the enacting system (dying) for the reactions (living) of each other.
Sleight of hand....suggested "actors" responding to suggesting directors implies being "reactors"...unless willingly ignored.
As choice one cannot "act" only "react" to enacting balance (need/want). Others can tempt one with suggested actors to believe in acting, while gaining the power to enter-tame ones mind through gained consent.
One needs to express the partial (living) not measure the impressing whole (process of dying).
a) ones consent to "want" the suggestion of another, puts one into opposition to everyone consenting to "not want" the same suggestion.
b) opposing implies counterbalance, which represents the inversion of being choice at the center of balance, hence busy balancing. If you consent to counter balance, then you imbalance yourself.
That represents domesticated behavior by those who consent to suggested IDEN'TITY, noun "sameness"; while ignoring perceivable apartheid aka being partial (living) within whole (process of dying) aka difference (diversity) within sameness (equality).
You ignore that what your senses perceive represents moving differences aka communicated inspiration for you to adapt to. The more you adapt to moving differences; the longer you sustain your different; problematic apartheid (living) within the same; ordered solution (dying).
The similarities you're domesticated to look for represents the norm; the mainstream; the party-line; the orders to follow; the behavior of the consenting cattle to trot along with; the suggested likeness the many identify as, e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka "united" states aka "united" nations aka european "union" aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing others together; while sustaining ones own apartheid) aka globalism aka miscegenation aka mass-migration aka the communist fist (holding together aka repression over expression) aka compound interest...to mix (compound) those within (inter) essence (esse) as the inversion of nature (process of dying) setting itself apart (living) internally.
You (perceiving) exist within (perceivable) while lacking (comprehension) of. You don't need to find out; you need to grow within (perceivable); while resisting the temptation to be lured (suggested) out.
Truth (want) vs false (not want) ignores change (need). Whatever one suggests to be "true" will change, hence becoming a "false" suggestion others can use to contradict one over and over again.
The suggested truth "I'm alive" tempts me to ignore the perceivable change (I'm living within the process of dying). I don't need to suggest others what I am, I need to sustain what I am within the ongoing origin of my temporary existence.
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see..."I am whatever you say I am; because if I wasn't, then why would I say I am?". That's a line from the song "the way I am", which implies the way (process of dying) I am (living).
...tempts you to want to understand aka to want to "stand under" what others are suggesting. If you stand under others (repression); then you can't grow (expression). Understanding represents the inversion of comprehending (compressing impressing for expression).