According to lexicographer Ben Zimmer,[13] the term originated in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Zimmer cites a 1974 letter by history teacher Sean O'Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about "the Whatabouts", people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy:

I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the "enemy", and therefore the justice of the Provisionals' cause: "What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?". Every call to stop is answered in the same way: "What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?". Neither is the Church immune: "The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?"

— Sean O'Conaill, "Letter to Editor", The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974

Good example of how claims of whataboutism are used to try to remove actual important context from a discussion.

[+] idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works -15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

1614 is the older term in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn't true... Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse

Let's see, "colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people" Same as your reasoning.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Whataboutism is only sometimes tu quoque.

And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn’t true…

Christ- this is deeply unserious. Do you understand how the British used it to deflect from the idea that IRA violence and British colonialism were connected? The British were saying "it is a logical fallacy to talk about our violence that creates the resistance, we are talkng about how the resistance is using violence and how that means they're bad"

Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse

Do you see all violence as divorced from other violence?

Let’s see, “colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people” Same as your reasoning.

The Nazis were a colonial power, Jesus Christ, Mary, and Joseph, did you learn nothing about fascism in school?

[–] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 3 days ago

Comparing different countries' actions in similar circumstances is the very foundation of international law. "The international community didn't consider this similar incident a breach of international law, so it shouldn't consider my much smaller version of the same thing a breach" isn't whataboutism, it's an argument advanced in and accepted by the ICJ all the time.

These types of comparisons usually aren't even used to excuse anything, either (and they aren't used that way here). The point of the comparison is to ask "do you have a principled opposition to this act that you would apply universally?"