[quetzthecoatl]

he is right, but raising whataboutism isn't an argument. It's absolutely valid to point out immoral doings of the very people who are doing the accusations. Otherwise, it's a race to make the accusations and the first one wins - everyone else is whataboutism. You can easily see who came up with the inane whatboutism - the one who did a whole lot of crimes in the past, and wants to judge others now for similar crimes.

[themitigating]

" It's absolutely valid to point out immoral doings of the very people who are doing the accusations."

What has this parent done that makes them ineligible to criticize others?

[quetzthecoatl]

not the parent, but the others who responded with "whataboutism". Holding one accountable to the same standards that he holds others accountable isn't wrong. I refuse to take anyone who raises the bogey of "whataboutism" seriously. It has the same validity as someone responding to an argument that it's wrong to make that argument at this time of the day.

[themitigating]

Whataboutism isn't pointing out a contradiction or hypocrisy.

It's a method of deflection.

"Whataboutism' is a rhetorical device that involves accusing others of offenses as a way of deflecting attention from one's own deeds."

[josephcsible]

This is the motte-and-bailey fallacy. When people cry whataboutism, it is because the person they're crying it at pointed out their hypocrisy. Then when they get called out on it, they fall back to saying it's a method of deflection.

[llanowarelves]

Yep. It's an inversion so that you're the bad guy for taking a look at the ledger you both (implicitly or explicitly) agreed to use.

Variations of:

"Hey can I get back that $50 I lent you? I always pay you back and thought we had a mutual understanding, what gives?"

"Nice whataboutism, quit trying to make it about me."

[themitigating]

You example doesn't make sense for this situation. It's between two people and things they did. However, The OP isn't the US government and hasn't committed war crimes (I assume).

Also your example isn't even whataboutism which is defined as "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."

What other accusation or difficult question is being raised in your example? It's person A asking for money he lent to person B back and pointing out what when person B lent him money he paid it back.

[llanowarelves]

Holding another group or person to the same/similar standard is often called "whataboutism" though. I will concede that that is probably misplaced (and malicious) application and not what was originally intended.

That's why claims of hypocrisy against the other party, backed up with examples of the same behavior in other situations from them instead of you, can be cheaply dismissed as "whataboutism".

[themitigating]

Using whataboutism to deflect a claim of hypocrisy is wrong, I'm completly with you on that. However to be even more firm about this, regardless of the intentions of whataboutism, you can't hold citizens of a country responsible for the actions of their government unless they were directly involved.

However... visa V mastercard , using whataboutism is valid in this situation. Bringing up something the US government did in the past to silence the criticism of a US citizen to another countries actions is wrong.

EDIT: Just another thought about your example. There isn't even hypocrisy. Person B lent money to A and A paid it back, then Person A lent money to B and B didn't pay it back.

- B doesn't pay back money

- A pays back money

There's no contradictions in their actions.