That's a shitty way of separating it though. It relies on knowing authorial intent which is impossible. You can project whatever you want onto the other person and based on that theyre either doing a logical fallacy or not.

[–] GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago

No it doesn't. The intent is obvious as a counter example works in context and isn't a diversionary tactic.

If the topic is Donald Trump's role in the insurrection on 1/6/21 and you say "but whatabout Hilary's email's?" that's whataboutism because Hilary's email scandal is unrelated.

If you instead said "what about the fact that Trump never appeared with the crowd outside the designated permitted spot and never told anyone to riot?" that would not be whataboutism because it is relevant.

Context is everything. Whataboutism is a fallacy and that is why. It does not make an argument flow from premise to conclusion.