Misunderstanding "Whataboutism"

Especially when it comes to politics, the fallacies of shirking off all criticism, whether it is rational or irrational criticism or just or unjust, by just trying to redirect attention to another person or group is not exactly uncommon.  This can be called "whataboutism," which might be expressed in using words similar to the following: "What about your candidate?  He/she does or says that too!"  It would be easy for some people to use whataboutism as a shield that is just a mere illusion, a momentary way to avoid the spotlight or to sound more sophisticated than they are.  Indeed, whataboutism in the sense of one person trying to condemn someone else for something that the first person is trying to hide in their own worldview or behaviors is plainly fallacious.  It is a manipulative rhetorical strategy used to keep the focus off of being perfectly consistent in evaluating people and ideas.

Nevertheless, pointing out the errors and hypocrisies of two people or two groups is not whataboutism when this kind of hypocritical deflection is not the goal.  A person who is only asking someone else why they would tolerate the same idiocy or sins in one person that they would in another, affirming that consistency is an inherent part of rationality and justice, or criticizing two groups/people without any biases for one or the other is not guilty of any logical error or inconsistent moral judgment.  In one sense, they might be using a kind of whataboutism by broadening their focus from just one person, event, or faction, but he or she is not doing so in a hypocritical or otherwise irrational way.  This is a necessity for philosophical accuracy in politics and every other aspect of social and even private life (consistency is a prerequisite for something to be true or even logically possible, making it vital for beliefs that are not publicly expressed).

Again, objecting to one person but not another for the same issue is irrational.  Personally identifying or socially calling attention to the errors of two sides of a conflict is only irrational if someone is trying to deflect genuine criticism by shifting blame or changing the focus to someone or something else.  Otherwise, it is literally a requirement of rationality to not mistake one side as being exempt from an error both are making.  Only a fool would allow avoidable biases, which all biases are, to drive them to condemn or judge one person or group but not another for the same problems.  In a world of fools, this has become standard in online and in-person conversations, perhaps most blatantly in those about politics.  Evaluating and critiquing two groups is justified as long as the starting points for the evaluation of ideas is not assumptions.

Ultimately, whataboutism is only fallacious and therefore invalid to some extent when it is used as a shield from truth and rational criticism aligned with truth.  The only alternative version of it is recognizing and pointing to genuine double standards and overlooked epistemological, moral, or other errors of a given person or faction.  Rationality requires that people be consistent, and thus thinking that someone is not guilty of that which they are guilty of, especially when compared to someone else who is rightly criticized for the same issues, is inherently stupid.  Cries of whataboutism that are ironically meant to take attention from legitimate criticisms are just as irrational as trying to defend one group/person by pointing out that someone else does the same thing.  Using charges of whataboutism to avoid valid criticisms is itself inept.