Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Mapping ‘whataboutery’
For as long as I’ve been reading Slugger, it’s been fairly rare for it to carry a post without someone using the comment threads to reawaken some historical grievance or other. Mick (or someone?) calls it ‘whataboutery.’
There is as good an example as any three comments in, on Pete’s post earlier about P&J.
According to the logic offered by ‘Marty McG’ there, no-one who is currently a member of Sinn Féin can ever be involved in any discussions about violence towards women because of the fate that Jean McConville suffered.
The thing is that – for the purpose of this post – it’s not an entirely invalid argument. But it’s not original either. It’s not intended to move a discussion on, to persuade people who are going to be a factor in the debate. It’s the equivalent of having someone bounding into a room screaming MURDERER! MURDERERS!!
No-one would put up with it offline. They would just find somewhere that they could talk without being interrupted.
It doesn’t acknowledge any of the material facts that a schoolchild would include in explaining Northern Ireland’s current political settlement. You just know that, if someone else has the energy, they will be able to come up with an accusation of some equivalent brutality or an external ‘root cause’ behind IRA violence. If you’ve ever been here before, you can already imagine the sequence such a argument can take.
The more likely possibility is that it just becomes a conversation stopper. And what can we do about this?
Well, for one thing, if we could have a shorthand that would show where Mrs McConville – or any other victim or perpetrator from Ireland’s history - can fit in, then at least the whataboutery can be diverted off somewhere else. So here’s a suggestion: Next time you’re on this site and you feel the need to apportion blame entirely to one factor in Northern Ireland’s society, have a look at this debategraph image and contribute to it. If you think that one of its nodes is invalid, say so. Others can say why it is. Give examples – turn it into a huge galaxy of reasons why everything else is someone elses fault. I’ve only made a start and I’m sure there is someone who was totally responsible for everything that I’ve forgotten to blame, so please feel free to add them.
And Debategraph isn’t the only tool that can be used for that either. You could find a few dozen people who agree with you that one section of society is entirely responsible for everything bad that has happened in Northern Ireland (a quick trawl through the comments threads here should do it) and you could use ‘Mixed Ink’ to convene and agreed statement of why you and your allies are the exclusive bearers of The Truth in these matters. There is no reason why a document couldn’t be convened for each of those nodes. Or it could be a suitable project to trial Google Wave with?
So there you go folks. Log in to Debategraph and get your side of the story out there.
Paul Evans @ 11:52 AM
You’re dead right Paul Evans….Sinn Fein/IRA have not right to talk about domestic violence whilst not apologising for what they did to people like Jean McConville. Sinn Fein / IRA are pariahs and shouldn’t have the opportunity to speak about such things….many of those who are in Stormont, including McGuinness, should be in jail rather than enjoying the British largesse they currently enjoy.
Sinn Fein are the scum of the earth and should be treated as such.As for you….I wonder are you the Paul Evans of BBC fame? If so perhaps you’ll recall you’re old home area where 3 bombs killed 9 people on 31st July 1972 rather than criticising my disgust for the murderers of Sinn Fein / IRA.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 02:18 PMProtestants have no right to talk about domestic violence because Henry the 8th beheaded his wife so there.
Stick it on the graph Marty.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 02:32 PMI am indeed no relation to the Paul Evans that you’re thinking of, and I don’t believe that there is any way that you can personally implicate me in any IRA murders. I wonder if you know any other line of argument or have you totally shot your bolt Marty?
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 02:51 PMWell Paul
The so called problem of ‘whatboutery’ is a liberal approach and it is deliberately self defeating.
Why?
Because it assumes everything to the left and to the right of
liberalism and it’s own position in society can be rhetorically (politically) cancelled by holding up a mirror to the ‘extremist’ and asking them to notice that they have similar (and thus irrelevant) characteristics to their opponents.But Norn Iron is NOT a liberal democracy therefore this act of modeling in itself must be questioned.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 04:13 PMYea let’s all forget the past. Just because someone (and that’s anyone) murdered in the past there’s no need to call into question their present day moral standpoint.
No need to worry about them not saying sorry or even reflecting on their personal history and how it may affect others. An expression of a little bit of ‘heartfelt’ “regret” when pushed should be more than enough.
Let’s burn all the criminal records, scrub the Sex Offenders’ Register, let the pedophiles become teachers.
Bin the ‘whataboutery’. What is it they say, ‘Today is the First Day of the Rest of Your Life’.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 04:17 PMNot suggesting anything of the sort. Just pointing out that - if you introduce every argument with an historical accusation, it’s a game that your opponents will play and it won’t get you anywhere.
Different Drummer - I have no idea what you mean. Northern Ireland IS a liberal democracy of sorts. Not a perfect one, but one in which people with polarised views can and do have constructive conversations.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 04:28 PMPaul Evans: “Not suggesting anything of the sort. Just pointing out that - if you introduce every argument with an historical accusation, it’s a game that your opponents will play and it won’t get you anywhere.”
Sure, but the rub is that all sides arguments are, to one degree or another, rooted in the injustices and their poor historical fortunes. There are few, if any, folks with clean hands. Most sides use the same rhetorical devices—that some (usu. their) history is important, whilst some history (usu. the other guy’s) history is less so.
Add to that that some of the players, based on their personal histories, lack the moral authority to use the bully-pulpits of their offices and you have a recipe for stale-mate.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 04:41 PMMarty McG
so the oo has no right to complain about political violence because of Drumcree? The UUP has no right to complain about political violence because of Berntollet? The DUP has no right to complain about guns and politics because of the third force?Just some what aboutery for you
PS Paul no need to thank me for providing the perfect example of what you are talking about
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 04:50 PMPaul Evans Writes:
” Just pointing out that - if you introduce every argument with an historical accusation, it’s a game that your opponents will play and it won’t get you anywhere.”
Yes mmmmmmm that’s right no moral point of view can be ‘proved’ in rhetoric.
If that’s the only point you would like to make here and now then it is game over for YOU because it is a politically useless observation in a class society and I might add on a site devoted to (cultural) Politics and NOT rhetoric.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 05:35 PMLet me thank you Sean. It would be good if you could try to follow your own advice. You play by the rules here, and you’ll find your posts stay up.
Slugger’s glossary entry is one of a couple of Google toppers we have: http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/02/glossary_what_i.php
I don’t think there is a moral imperative (nor even a political one) to recognised the beggar thy neighbour characteristics of this popular ‘strategy’. As I’ve noted previously:
...the BBC quoted Cardinal Cahal Daly as having described Whataboutery as “the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today”, referring to how both communities use the terrible burden of past events to lay obstacles in the way of peace.
It’s a form of self entrapment, in that you remain so focused on ‘taking out’ the opposition you barely have time to get your own arguments manufactured and/or developed, never mind ‘off the ground’.
I’d be very interested in seeing some of the more open policy based conversations mapped and for us compare the patterns between the two.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 05:44 PMChrist in Allah’s shoes….talk about self-fulfilling. How about (notice the absence of ‘what’) we just blame God….if he exists*
*I here subscribe to the Liam Gallagher method of belief.Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 06:10 PMPaul Evans: Mick (or someone?) calls it ‘whataboutery.’
Next week - ‘yesbutery’
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 06:40 PMBack On Topic…
Kind Admin Writes:
On the above model of social interaction..
It’s a form of self entrapment, in that you remain so focused on ‘taking out’ the opposition you barely have time to get your own arguments manufactured and/or developed, never mind ‘off the ground’.
For what it produces as I have said countless times is:
An Equality of Misery
It’s like The Two Nations theory of Conor Cruse O’Brien and the Stalinists:
“Northern Ireland is a place of two competing nationalism’s and nationalities each being valid”
Therefore they are only two ‘competing points of view/aspirations/identities’...
- There is no politically oppressed nationality/ dominant nationality….Which side steps the question of who is **actually** politically dominant…
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 07:00 PMLOL Mick I only posted that to prove Paul’s point.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 07:01 PM...Sean it ‘proves’ nothing
Mick Kind Admin indicated that debates on the quality of debate should attempt deeper meanings and not just politically useless observations.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 07:17 PMAlthough I have a great deal of time for Mick I must disagree with the central premise that “taking out the opposition” is a bad thing.
I am proud to attack and catch out certain individuals of both loyalist and republican persuasion over their support for murderers. I will continue to do so until I am removed from this site.
It does matter to many people here that certain politicians were involved in heinous acts and nothing they can do subsequently will absolve them of their crimes especially if they actually glory in their crimes. Their previous acts speak more powerfully than any words they might ever thereafter say. I am proud to point this out and proud to slam their cheerleaders on this site.
Yes it may close down debate but maybe they in their anger and frustration just might begin to see that many in the unionist and also nationalist community will never accept the murderers or their fellow travellers as if the murders had not happened.
It may be whataboutery but I am afraid there are a lot of people who think it should be repeatedly raised.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 08:03 PMTurgon wrote “many in the unionist and also nationalist community will never accept the murderers or their fellow travellers as if the murders had not happened”.
” I am afraid there are a lot of people who think it should be repeatedly raised”.
I can see where Turgon’s coming from but unless this mindset is abandoned, particularly the last sentence, (community counselling?) no progress can or will be made.
Unless we all decide to shoulder some of the blame, regret the dead (on all sides, surely?), show compassion to the survivors (haven’t we all suffered?)and embrace a full human rights agenda for all, none of us is going to make it as a fully paid up citizen of 21st century Europe.
I had a look at the blame apportioning debategraph game. Is there any box for ALL? Couldn’t find one or couldn’t make it work!!Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 08:29 PManne warren,
What blame? I bear no responsibility for the murders here seeing as I never murdered nor celebrated, nor wanted the murder of anyone. Now if you killed someone or colluded in someone’s death and feel guilty about it you should go to the police and confess. If you supported murder you should hang your head in shame. However, if you did none of the above (and I suspect that is the case) then stop wallowing in the self righteousness of self appointed guilt.As to regret the dead: I have repeatedly said that I regret all the deaths. I honestly wish none had died. However, I will not condemn the off duty UDR man who killed an IRA terrorist who attacked him and was trying to murder him.
The terrorist who died whilst committing his crimes is a very different moral proposition to Marie Wilson or Kathryn Eakin. For anyone to fail to see that suggests a deliberate and wilful moral blindness which is reprehensible and should be repeatedly pointed out. In my view to pretend no distinction between Marie Wilson and the likes of Thomas Beagley is actually itself gravely morally wrong.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 08:40 PMAnd as I said to use other peoples deaths as a moral lever to build your own ultra reactionary party is not defensible either..
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 08:46 PMTurgon, if you did not protest against this sectarian carve up then one can presume you supported it and it’s gangs of statelet sponsored murderers and it’s integral discrimination. So whose hands are clean?
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 08:49 PMI will not condemn the off duty UDR man who killed an IRA terrorist who attacked him and was trying to murder him.
Ahh but Turgon, WHATABOUT the UDR? Not exactly a nice bunch of boyos themselves, particularly if you came from the nationalist community. You see Turgon, herein lies your problem, no condemnation of British crown forces murders and collusion in such. The ‘few bad apples’ excuse is laid bare by even the most cursory of glances at British military history. The same military which has always enjoyed unqualified support with the likes of our Turgs.I now invite the Pointus Pilate routine.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 08:56 PMRS,
I have repeatedly condemned collusion which I am sure did occur. I would like to see the colluders of the British and Irish state investigated, prosecuted and gaoled for their crimes as well.I do not give the military unqualified support. However, they were colossally better than any of the murder gangs.
As to opposing the “sectarian carve up” to what are you alluding? I agree the current system is a sectarian carve up but you may have noticed in my three plus years here on slugger I am an opponent of the current dispensation. If you mean the 1920s settlement well I was born in 1971.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 09:01 PMHowever, they were colossally better than any of the murder gangs.
Turgon, murder was army policy, they WERE a murder gang. Colossally better at convincing others they weren’t. When will you admit that to nationalists there was little difference between those in uniform and the Yabba Dabba Do crowd.
(As an aside, the lure of this ‘whataboutery’ is akin to that of a child being told not to press that big red button….sometimes you can’t help yourself.)Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 09:13 PMRS,
Had the army been a murder gang like the assorted actual murder gangs there would have been an overwhelmingly larger number of deaths. Who knows the violence might have ended sooner but I am glad that in actual fact the army was vastly different from the yabba dabba doo types of both sides..Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 09:17 PMTurgon how many murders does a group have to commit before they earn the epihet ‘murder gang’?
Your defence of a group with an indefensible history is endearing.
And yes Turgon, the way to stop violence is with more violence. After all sons do not grow up to hate the murderers of their fathers and brothers.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2009 @ 09:25 PM
