Whataboutism

File: Whataboutism.jpg (46KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1024x512px

Can someone explain to me why Whataboutism is not sound? Why is it treated like a logical fallacy?

Situation 1:
>A is mad about a humanitarian crisis happening in X location.
>B: "Well, what about the humanitarian crisis happening close to home in Y?"
>A: "That's different."
>B has effectively demonstrated A's bias and attempt to direct outrage for political ends.

Situation 2:
>A is mad about a humanitarian crisis happening in X location.
>B: "Well, what about the humanitarian crisis happening close to home in Y?"
>A: "That's also inexcusable."
>B has verified that A is genuinely interested in human welfare, and is not making accusations solely for political ends.

It doesn't seem as though Whataboutism is making excuses or trying to redirect attention elsewhere. Instead, it is an attempt to uncover the motives behind the accusation, and if answered incorrectly, ruins the opponent's argument in one blow by striking at the ethos (they're not qualified to judge what is or is not a humanitarian crisis), pathos (they're insensitive to the plights of certain disadvantaged groups), AND logos (their criteria for diagnosing a humanitarian crisis is inconsistent or inaccurate).

To call this a logical fallacy or even a shady tactic seems like the whining of those who fail this test and have their outrage correctly identified as inconsistent and politically motivated. It is only natural to test your opponent with counterexamples and see if their logic holds true.