How To Spot A Lame, Lame Argument

There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web, and is seeping into the pubs, coffee shops and opinion columns everywhere. It is known as 'what-aboutery' - and there was a particularly ripe example of it in response to one of my articles last week.

As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument - when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?"

You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it - hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

So whenever I report on, say, atrocities committed by Israel, I am bombarded with e-mails saying: "But what about the bad things done by Muslims? Why do you never talk about them?" Whenever I report on the atrocities committed by Islamists, I am bombarded with e-mails saying: "But what about Israel? Why do you never write about the terrible things they do?" And so it goes on, whatever the subject, in an endless international shifting of blame, united in the cry: "What about them! Talk about them instead!"

This argument is almost always disingenuous. How do I know? Because when you write back and explain that, why, I do actually criticize Islamists/Israel/the US/China/whoever-you-have-picked-out-randomly, and here are the articles where I do it, nobody ever writes back and says: fair enough; you consistently condemn human rights abuses, no matter who commits them. No. They scrape around for another "what about." What about Tibet? What about Sri Lanka? What about North Korea? This list never ends, as the other side tries to draw your attention further and further from what you were discussing.

HufPo readers have just seen a classic example. Last week I reported from Dubai, pointing out that this glittering city was built on what Human Rights Watch calls "slavery" - bitterly poor people who are conned into going there and forced to stay by a medieval dictatorship. Amongst others, I interviewed an Emirati man called Sultan al-Qassemi who passionately defended this system, saying that it is absolutely right that these workers are blasted with water cannons, arrested, and deported if they try to strike against their slavery-style conditions.

He did not react to my article by responding to the many criticisms I made of Dubai. He can't. He knows they are true. Instead he wrote a post for HufPo asking: But what about Britain? He listed many things wrong with Britain - homelessness, detention without trial, the abuse of trafficked workers - and cried: talk about them instead!

As it happens, I have criticized all these things about Britain myself, in the British press, and in publications across the world. The difference is - Sultan doesn't oppose the appalling things about his own country. He cheers them on - and all he can do to distract from this shameful fact is to try to change the subject.

The best way to respond to what-aboutery is to state a simple truth. Say it slowly: there can be more than one bad thing in the world. You can oppose American atrocities, and Chinese atrocities. You can be critical of Israel, and of Islamism. You can condemn Dubai's system of slavery, and the fact people are detained without trial in Britain. You can stand independent of governments - including your own - and criticize anyone who chooses to abuse human rights. The world is not divided into a Block of Light, and a Block of Darkness; you don't have to pick a tribe and defend its every action.

So whenever you hear the cry "But what about...!", you can reply: what about we ignore this crude attempt to change the subject, and focus on the subject in hand?

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here.

Comments

[fightorleave2]

You da' man.

[jan4insight]

Excellent post; I hope these points get wide exposure throughout the web. A close cousin of the what-aboutery plaque is the "But what if a _____ did this, you'd be saying _____" A little hard to capture in generic fashion, but you'll recognize it when you see it. Just another to ramp up the volume while decreasing the substance of discussions on important matters.

[ProgressiveVoice]

I believe the adult response used to be, "Two wrongs don't make a right". At least, that was what they said when I was a child.

[Ale]

It's quite the same argument small children try and use when caught doing something. "Well, ya I stole the money out of the jar, But Billy broke the dish!"
of course any intelligent adult does not allow this to work

[jhamm1]

While I don't necessarily feel that this applies in Johann's case, complaints about "what aboutery" often equate to one attempting to assuage their own embarrassment in the event of being pointed out as either a hypocrite or simply harboring a radical double-standard.

Make no mistake, whataboutery does not a "lame argument" make, and in many instances it serves as an invaluable tool to refute the most notorious hypocrites on the planet.

[OneTop]

Good article.

Thanks Johann

[Benton]

Lets face it, discourse on blogs, especially the comments section resembles domestic arguments. People address each other in tones resembling arguing spouses and feuding siblings. We just let it all hang out trying to score gotcha points as soon as it is established that we disagree.

[georgefrancis]

Great article Johann. I encounter a lot of those "What about..."s often here on the HuffPo message board. They are not at all constructive in any way and only serves to hijack the argument and send it into futility.

[LMPE]

It seems to me that most of the people who say "what about" are the types who get their "information" from Fox Noise and/or Rush Limbaugh.

[Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi - Huffpost Blogger]

I just want to say how much I respect the British press, they have printed a critical article about themselves. It reflects professionalism and neutrality.

Things aren't perfect in Dubai, but we are working on them. We need help and advice from others and we welcome constructive objective criticism.

I have personally written about human rights, women rights, children rights, environmental protection and criticised my own country and provided solutions. We are not blind to our shortcomings, we need to work faster though.

Finally, I was amused by the abusive and racist comments about me on The Independent's website, people don't like to feel attacked. Johann, it's taste of your own medicine.

[papapj]

Defending the indefensible never amounts to 'giving someone a taste of their own medicine'. It is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt.

[phlashba]

Sooud,

How ironic that you continue to provide examples of exactly what the article is about.

And...."Taste of your own medicine" is a child's vengeful concept.

[AN2009]

I find it amusing that you completely ignored Johann Hari's argument and attempted to justify your morally bankrupt position with childish comments like "it's taste of your own medicine." Quite frankly, it's surprising that you're even a columnist and university lecturer in Dubai. With reasoning skills like that, at least, there'll always be a spot for you at Fox News. To paraphrase the irreverent animated TV show South Park, you just got pawned by Hari.

[sas]

What an incredibly unconvincing article. I was expecting Johann Hari to come up with a more convincing rebuttal to Sheikh Qassemi's expose of the underbelly of British society, but instead Johan Hari has not refuted a single point, repeat a single point made by Sheikh Qassemi. Instead, he tried to prove his point by distracting attention away from the criticisms made by the Sheikh about the UK.

The strength of Hari's logic is pretty underwhelming. Sorry, you do not convince this Huffington Post user !

[chaos4700]

Bit of a straw man, considering Hari was not attempting to refute Qassemi's points, but rather point out the motivation behind it was a deflection.

[clevelandchick]

You did not get the gist of the post....you actually committed a 'what-aboutery' totally proving Johann's point. It's called reading for comprehension. He said he's written about Britain's problems, among others...he writes about human rights abuses everywhere. But the answer to an argument isn't to distract from the subject at hand.

The point is Johann's article was about Dubai that particular day and the Sheikh chose to answer that criticism by changing the subject away from his own nation's human rights abuses to point the finger somewhere else...to distract.

[tc2598]

I think you're also the Sultan, that's what I think.

[davidly]

Why would he refute what he doesn't disagree with? Can you read?

[Solaris123]

Wow. Mr. Hari nailed the predominant mode of discourse on this site.

[chaos4700]

How come all you pro-Israel types do is come here to attack anything that isn't Israel? Arabs, the UN, international law, nuclear proliferation treaties, human rights conventions, other commentators on Huffington Post, Huffington Post /itself/. Do you honestly think you're persuasive, going around and shooting at anything that moves? It's like Operation Cast Lead, internet style.

[Cenrand]

Another perfect example of what Mr. hari was writing about.

[dmacgregor]

And most of my conservative friends, who respond "what about" whenever I rebut their outlandish claims about Obama with factual information. Makes responsible dialogue most difficult.

[tc2598]

You actually have to get out a pencil and paper and make them keep track of their points. Drives them crazy, not being able to speak in only shrieking sound bites.

[violettefemme]

Ah yes, the Elizabeth Hasselbeck method of political discourse.

[allonfla]

Yes, lol. I love her "if Bush had done that" or "if Sarah Palin had done...."

[Travis Cagle]

If Spartacus had had a Piper Cub - got you.

[clevelandchick]

It's pretty much textbook conservative debate method across the board.

Lefty: "Bush invaded Iraq illegally and based on lies"

Con: "But Sadaam gassed the Kurds in the 80's"

Lety: "Yeah but Reagan sold him those chemical weapons, see that picture of Rumsfeld shaking Sadaam's hand."

Con: "Sadaam had rape rooms!!!!"

Lefty: "What does that have to do with invading Iraq illegally?"

Con: "Did you hear me...rape rooms, rape rooms!!!!!!!"