WHATABOUTERY AND STRAWMAN FALLACY

     On retirement I gleefully joined all social networking sites which were out of bounds in service. Soon I got flooded with tsunami of comments and posts. I tried to catch some threads but was puzzled by the pattern of discussion. Though it was not new for me as the political debates which I had often heard on TV were being made on the same lines. I grew up hearing about the rich tradition of philosophical thought and debate in ancient Indian philosophy. Gargi Vachaknavi (Delhi University college Gargi is named after her) is believed to be the first female philosopher. She was famous for her intellectual debates with other philosophers. Her philosophical debate with the renowned sage Yagnavalkya about ‘nature of reality’ is documented in the Brhadarankyaka Upanishad.  After a long and intense debate Gargi humbly accepted her defeat in front of the knowledge of the great saint. The unpretentious acceptance of her defeat showed that debate was to genuinely pursue the truth. There was no role of ego coming in and the words resonating with the truth were embraced. We need to adopt these traditions from our great past. The conversation is filled with depth and utter honesty. Contrast this with present day conversations/debates.  They are filled with logical fallacies like strawman fallacy and whataboutery.

A straw man fallacy is a reasoning fallacy where the person using the strawman argument pretends to argue against their opponent’s original position, while they have created a distorted version of that position-one that their opponent does not necessarily support and that is easy to rebuke. It is used to turn their opponent’s argument into an unpopular position that is easy to rally supporters against because it violates social norms. It can take different forms and may involve taking an opponent’s word out of context by choosing words that misrepresent their intention. Sometime they will exaggerate or oversimplify an opponent’s argument and then attack this distorted version. This is achieved by fabricating claim that that the opponent never actually made or/and changing small but important details in the opponent’s original argument. A prominent politician is jailed for corruption. His reaction, “the government does not want a backward and poor person to continue as XYZ.” Here he has created a strawman which is easy to defend, but away from the original argument which is about corruption. A question about custodial deaths of civilians in insurgency area led to making of multiple strawmen. You do not trust Army. You are anti-army. You are anti-India etc. These strawmen are can be easily crushed giving the idea that the argument has been answered and defeated. But the original point remains untouched, undebated, and unanswered.  

Whataboutism also called Whataboutery is a strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter accusation instead of a defence of the original accusation. It is like responding to the accusation by labelling the other as bad or worse. As if two wrongs combined can make it true. It is one of the commonest forms of evasion of personal responsibility. Philosopher Merold Westphal said that only people who know themselves to be guilty of something “can find comfort in finding others to be just as bad or worse.” Whataboutery permits to deviate the discussion from the original point. It is also adopted by parties/ countries/people who lack clean record.  From the philosophical point, if you got into it (whataboutery) it is an indication that you have lost the debate and you are just beating around the bush. It is also an indication that the person is trying to defend the indefensible. It happens all the time on TV, political discussions, social sites etc. Let us take some examples.

There has been riots somewhere and political parties are sparring with opposition asking the government to respond. The response is a counter accusation asking them as to what happened to the riots (by specifically naming them) during their tenure. The debate is now trying to change track from the original point. Further the parties will start throwing in the number of riots that have taken place in their tenures with each accusing the other of being worse than them. The point lost is that the discussion is taking place about a specific incident which happened in present time. An astute observer (normal population i.e. voters) would think that both are bad. Where does he go to. Dear readers, please watch a debate and see if there is whataboutery. If it is there than it is mudslinging and not a discussion or debate. The gangrape of a woman in Manipur invited similar responses. Look into the cases in the other states governed by you. Whataboutery involves commenting and attacking the person to undermine him instead of focusing on his arguments. Even if the counter accusation is true, it does not negate the validity of his argument. In the above discussion on riots, it is evident that riots are bad where ever and whenever they have taken place. But the debate is about the riot which is happening now or have just happened with situation still tense. This need a meaningful discussion to arrive at some point from where remedial actions may be employed.

In philosophy an argument is a reasoned debate aimed at truth. But today it is viewed as a battle, a tug of war where offence is the best defence.  Psychologists suggest that this view of argument is prevalent in political debate because it is driven by partisan bias. When confronted by an opponent with a different political view people are more likely to view what they say as an attack to be countered, rather than a point to be debated. The same trend is being seen on social groups where people jump to declare each other bhakts, sickular or anti-xyz etc. without trying to understand the point being made. Plato says that arguments should be aimed at truth. But todya they are aimed to spread misinformation. Almost all the ills that plague society today has been present since long and all parties/governments are guilty of doing little about them. Casteism, corruption, appeasement, riots, religious fundamentalism have existed throughout. But to assume that they were never challenged is false. Emergency was wrong, it was criticised and Congress lost power. 1984 riots against Sikh should never have happened and people in power cannot deny their culpability.

Another mode is to use rhetorical strategy during discussions by attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The aim here is to avoid a genuine debate by creating personal attack as a diversion by putting the questioner and not the argument under enquiry. The aim here is again to draw the attention of audiences to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Even if the charge levelled about personal character is true it does not provide a valid reason not to debate the criticism put forward. Most of such discussions turn into abusive exercise aimed at the person and not at the argument put forth. The discussion thus is shifted away from the original point. In the process questioner is abused and past records are dug up to show him in negative light. In the ensuing fight the original point is lost which is what the respondent wanted.

The ability to recognize problems on all sides is wisdom. The assumption that action on one front necessarily makes one vulnerable on another front is folly. Whataboutism is intellectual laziness. It is most utilized by people who do not have either wisdom to analyze details or they do not have time and inclination to do that, but would like to be part of the debate. It suits people who believe in one liner. If you are debating and people get into whataboutery you may like to terminate the conversation. It is also the involuntary admission of their acceptance of your rightness. Dear readers, please watch any debate, discussion, conversation on media or social sites and observe how quickly the talk derails due to insertion of logical fallacies.