[afavour]

...no it isn't? Whataboutism is when you redirect attention from issue #1 to unrelated issue #2 in an attempt to change the conversation topic: "forget that, look at this!"

OP's comment was pointing out the similarities between issue #1 and issue #2. There's no dismissal.

[wang_li]

Whataboutism is when you are trying to show a double standard because person A did a thing that you were upset about and person B did the same thing and you don't care. Asking why you care about a person doing a thing and didn't care when a different person did something different is not whataboutism.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I agree with the GP on the definition of whataboutism, and think that you have described something with a much older term: "pointing out the hypocrisy".

They both share in common that rather than continuing to talk about just one thing, you are now talking about (at least) two.

But whataboutism is a diversion tactic that tries to shift the attention from behavior/event A to behavior/event B; pointing out the hypocrisy notes the similarities between behaviors/events A and B and contrasts the response.

Both can be deployed in similar situations, but the motivations for choosing one over the other are substantially different.

[Chyzwar]

OP did not state his motivation, leaving it for open interpretation.

[TaurenHunter]

You are responsible for your own interpretation/distortion.

[CGMthrowaway]

Is a double standard good or bad?

[Chyzwar]

  > The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Both Clintons private email server, Pete signal chats and Trump documents stash in Mar-a-lago are equally bad. Lack of consequences signal erosion of “Law and order” in the US. It seems that US is now not different from third rate countries where last minute exceptions, insider trading, open bribery, secret police(ICE) and targeted prosecution is a new norm.

[comfysocks]

I agree that all three are bad and shouldn’t be tolerated.

However, Hegseth’s transgression was the worst in terms of severity by orders of magnitude. Details of an in-progress military operation and all.

[Chyzwar]

We do not know. We do not know what documents Trump had in Mar-a-lago, who had access to them, and what he shared with others. Furthermore, we do not know what was in Clintons emails and who read them. If anything, Hegseth’s is less damming, since we know the content of chat and participants. In both Clintons and Trump cases, the impact could be much bigger. The problem in all cases is lack of accountability.

[afavour]

> If anything, Hegseth’s is less damming, since we know the content of chat and participants

That at least is surely not true. We know the contents because his attention to security was even less than the others we've heard about.

[ethbr1]

The dismissal is implied. And this behavior is endemic in modern reporting and political conversation.

Novel idea: what if we focus on the exact issue that was originally brought up?

'Someone else did it, or something like it, sometime, somewhere.' I'm past caring about that -- because it's used too frequently to distract from the current issue.

A. Hegseth broke the law and shared classified information on a system that wasn't approved for it.

B. Or, he unilaterally declassified operational details without informing anyone or going through a normal process.

It can only be one of the two above options, because the facts aren't in question.

Edit: But looks like National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be taking the fall for this: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t

[pessimizer]

> The dismissal is implied.

Is it? I'd think that somebody who took Hillary's hidden 3rd party communications seriously would take these seriously too.

The bizarre behavior is insisting that what Clinton did was trivial, but that this is a disaster.

Also this emphasis on security is backseat driving from a bunch of people who want to attack Iran. The real problem with them using third-party communications is that they avoid FOIA.

[ethbr1]

Can you try responding to what Hegseth did without mentioning anyone else?

It's a simple ask.