And your comment is meaningless. Please provide a reference to the textbook that defines whataboutism. Right, you can't, because it's just word salad. The term is meant to make forum users disregard a statement by sneering at the commenter and generating social stigmatization. Looky here folks, we've got a whataboutist, ignore them. It's almost like the word "cromulant", it's just a placeholder word. It means nothing.
It includes many historical references, and an example from 1974 which may be the first use of the term; the definition given there (and throughout the article) is obviously applicable to modeless' original comment. It also includes a thoughtful defense of whataboutism, including rndmize's comment that sometimes it provides useful context.
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.
If this article is the "textbook" definition of Whataboutism, then perhaps I take back my statement. I find it quite unbiased and fair in its consideration of the use of "whataboutism" as a pejorative and manipulative bad-faith argumentation technique.
