Is whataboutism a logical fallacy or a legitimate argument?

>>3311513
It's a fallacy. The actual argument is at no point challenged, just the person making the argument.

>>3311519
but isn't the credibility of the person who criticises also important, especially when it comes to moral questions like human rights or international law?

>>3311549
You can be the most hypocritical person on Earth and still make a valid argument.

>>3311562
What if your argument is an appeal to certain moral values which you don't follow yourself?

Yes, strictly, but it makes sense when the one attacking you represents the opposed side and acts morally superior.
Like Americans crying about Crimea but doing similar shit in Kosovo.

>>3311571
Then post a smug Striner and say spooky

>>3311575
>Like Americans crying about Crimea but doing similar shit in Kosovo.
You're being purposefully ironic right?

>>3311592
Nope, it was an illegal occupation, and Crimea is an illegal occupation, difference is in cosmetics.
>b-but Serbs killed poor Albanians
They mainly fought Western-backed terrorist organization. And given how insane many of Ukrainians are, saying that violent outcome was impossible in Crimea is dishonest. So Russians were "protecting" people too. Only they didn't sugarcoat it as much.

>>3311609
So we're in a thread about whataboutism, where the OP specifically cites an example of the Soviet Union using whataboutism to deflect against their actions, and you launch into an argument about how "Russia did a thing but what about when the US did a thing".
Now you may be asking yourself why I respond to such obvious bait.

I've seen people on the internet call a statement "whataboutism" or tu quoque even when it's not used as an argument against a position in particular, as if simply accusing someone of hypocrisy is automatically wrong.
Tu quoque would be
>X is hypocritical about position Y and so Y is proven wrong
not just
>X is hypocritical about position Y

>>3311609
>Be serbia
>cause refugees to escape all around europe for a decade, pissing off every european country who also happen to be in nato because they dont want to deal with refugees.
>get buttmad when they get bombed and pretend they dindu nuthing.
Next time you want to deal with terrorist dont cause refugees to also escape everywhere retard.

>>3311618
I launch into argument because you adressed that part. I was originally only giving an example of when whataboutism makes sense.
If you represent side A and you cry about how evil B is for doing X, calling your out and saying A does X defeats your claimed moral superiority.
Pro-tip: I said clearly whataboutism is a logical fallacy, but even if it is a logical fallacy it's useful in some situations.

>>3311628
I literally don't give a fuck about all that, I gave an example. It was an illegal act of agression according to international law, and de facto occupation. Americans still have a huge military base there.

>>3311620
I get what you are saying but it is a bit disingenuous to pretend that most people saying "what about x" or "person A is a hypocrite" aren't trying to make an argument just because they don't formally say "so person A is proven wrong". It's not like most of them are actually trying to say "I completely agree with the position person A is stating I just happened to want to raise this other random topic and / or accuse them of hypocrisy".

>>3311634
You're not getting it. Saying "Russia did nothing wrong in Crimea because the US (read:NATO) bombed Kosovo" is a fallacy. You're argument is nonsensical and quite honestly reads as propaganda (which it is). Also, bombing a terrorist group with the express consent of the UN and every NATO member is different than the unlawful annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

>>3311513

Is appeal to hypocrisy a fallacy? Yes, yes it is. If it weren't. I could dismiss anything and everything you ever say because "but what about the fact he posts on 4chan? That's a neo-nazi website!"

>>3311571

So if a heavy smoker told you "smoking is bad for you", you'd dismiss this because he himself smokes?

>>3311571
Doesn't matter. The argument stands alone.

>>3311634
>If you represent side A and you cry about how evil B is for doing X, calling your out and saying A does X defeats your claimed moral superiority.

Firstly, the US has never annexed the Crimea, so you are NOT comparing X with X. Secondly, yes, it is STILL fallacious, you fucking imbecile. If Russia were to release the Crimean, and then later another country were to annex it, Russia could absolutely say "hey faggot, annexing the Crimean is wrong!"

>>3311667
No, but if he would say smoking makes me a bad person, I would reply that he is in no position to judge

>>3311680

So yes, you WOULD dismiss it for this reason? You're a fucking moron.

>>3311669
Can I reply that the appeal to moral has no weight because nobody follows that moral?

>>3311667
>So if a heavy smoker told you "smoking is bad for you", you'd dismiss this because he himself smokes?
smoking is bad for you, so give me all your cigarettes.

>>3311513
Complaining about "whataboutism" is literally complaining about that someone legitimately used your own argument.

See: You are a bad person because you robbed a guy
Yeah, but you you did the same thing, why are you judging me?
*autistic acreeching about whataboutism*

>>3311682
N-no you