This is the continuation of an article whose first installment ran last week.
Remember, before Hillary 2016 came along, there was "What about Obama? [insert talking point]” as well. The Republican Party has started to play the hits so often that it has become easier to predict what they're throwing out there – and how to dismantle the argument.
When the infamous "they" level accusations to cover up for obvious failings in their leaders and attack using irrelevant points, don’t take it lying down. Though they have responded to your criticism, they haven’t won the argument.
Here’s a guide to help you respond the next time someone throws a “What about…?” at you.
1: Figure Out Where They Are Coming From
Even though conservatives live in a particularly intense and brainwash-y echo chamber, we are all at some level guilty of insulating ourselves from outside opinion. In general you may be preaching to the choir because of the polarized nature of our media ecosystems, and you may not realize that the points you're making only address your value system. Although they are convincing to you, they will not persuade a conservative with different values, or all too often these days, a different set of facts.
Whatever your political leanings, people are just people, so try to figure out what common ground you do have. This can be something as simple as both loving the sunshine or thinking cats are cute. No matter how divisive our politics, there are still some things we can all agree on. Find and use these shared commonalities to be more convincing to others, not just yourself.
2: Re-Frame the Argument
In a study of political arguments and their persuasiveness, Stanford sociologist Robb Willer found that the most effective way to argue your point is to frame it in the moral system of the person you are talking to. For instance, someone opposed to gay marriage will be much more likely to support the idea when told that “same-sex couples are proud and patriotic Americans … [who] contribute to the American economy and society,” rather than presented a logical argument based on "equality and fairness".
The study revealed that messages were much more persuasive when they fit into the moral framework of the target audience. Morality itself is not as clear-cut as it seems, Willer suggested in the study. “Morality can be a source of political division, a barrier to building bi-partisan support for policies. But it can also be a bridge if you can connect your position to your audience’s deeply held moral convictions.”
3. Keep Things Focused
One of the hallmarks of Whataboutism is that it muddies the argument. For example, a discussion about the blatant financial corruption of the administration is expanded into a general statement that all politicians steal, so it doesn't matter. Point out they're not actually addressing what you said, adding “that’s an interesting point, we can discuss that later but let’s talk about just this right now.”
Keep things focused on the issue at hand. Once you are through talking about specific examples of Trump’s corruption, you can then compare it to their opinion that all politicians steal, and show that even though many politicians are corrupt, in comparison Trump displays a truly unique level of corruption.
4. Take the Punch
It may be tempting but don’t argue about the existence of your opponent's “What about…?” claim. That's actually what they want you to do so they can dismiss your opinion wholesale. Instead, strategically accept it, then immediately re-contextualize the issue. Like an old kung fu master, you must take the force and redirect it. Often, when you agree with them, you also take the force out of your opponent's argument. Don’t die on your laurels; make sure you respond to their irrationality with the logical acceptance of the facts, as well as the insistence that they do the same.
5. Break Down Jingoism
Whataboutism usually has a healthy dose of jingoism, so when someone simply starts spouting phrases, stop them and ask them to break down exactly what they mean by what they’ve said in detail. This would be a sucker punch to Donald Trump, who never appears to know what he’s said even if he said it just minutes ago. Breaking down their argument for closer examination also gives you a chance to re-frame the argument.
You can address the individual parts of what they have said, and point out many of the inherent flaws that cause conspiratorial thinking to collapse. You don’t have to refute every point, but identify the weird jumps in logic that are necessary for their argument to be considered true. You can then directly attack that chink in their argument’s armor.
Jingoisms are intentionally vague; they are designed this way so that the meaning can shift as needed, making refuting their argument difficult. If you don’t have people specify exactly what they are saying, they are liable to claim that the phrase has a different meaning than the one you addressed. If they can’t spell out what they mean, point out that they don’t seem to understand their own position.
6. Bad Faith Discourse
Even though these rhetorical countermeasures are often effective, there is one caveat: When you are arguing with someone who is arguing in bad faith. Sadly, when someone is arguing with you in bad faith, you don’t have as many options. You will not be able to convince them of your point and they are probably going to try to antagonize you, because provoking an emotional response will make it harder for you to correctly respond to what they have said.
First and foremost, try not to get upset as they may find some sort of victory in the fact that they have angered you. One-on-one conversation entered into in bad faith is best met with walking away. However, if there are others listening who you would like to convince, change tack and redirect your argument to the audience. Presenting a convincing argument to an audience when the person arguing with you is being unreasonable won’t convince them, but it might just convince the people listening in.
The True Nature Of Political Discussion
Don’t assume that everyone using Whataboutisms is guilty of not entering into political discussion in good faith. Even whatabouts have an air of “truthiness” and can seem convincing at face value. The way whatabouts dominate our public discourse in an endless drumbeat of fake news and propaganda means that even well-meaning people are getting thrown off base. Many of those propagating extremist right wing views might actually be parroting something they heard on Fox Newsor, God forbid, Infowars.
So, the next time your racist family member spouts off, you can employ these techniques to shut down the lies. Ultimately, Whataboutism is a cheap trick that can easily be defeated once you know how. In fact, when properly employing counter-tactics against genuinely receptive people, it can actually get them to re-examine their beliefs – especially if you can point out the inherent hypocrisy of the “What about…?” tactic in a non-confrontational way.
In our post-truth world, it’s sad that we even have to bother with such a transparent piece of thought control on a daily basis. In the thaw of the Cold War, Russia has resurrected mass Whataboutism and even weaponized this rhetorical hack in the age of social media. The computationally assisted whatabout megaphone blasts out every minute of every day, and has come to dominate the political discourse on social media. Worse, it isn’t going away. Whataboutism is purposefully crafted to shape your opinions and beliefs, without regard for truth, and you shouldn’t let it have its sway over you or those you know.
