Hell, I never heard of this "whataboutism".

I simply dont talk with those type people. Dont have the time nor the energy...

When it comes to things like the OP's concerns, I usually say something like


Either violence is wrong, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

Here is what you say:

The capitol storming was done by patriotic Americans that were sickened by the election fraud that was mostly ignored by the media and the courts. I fully support the capitol being taken over as a lesson for the government to respect the rights of citizens that want every legal vote counted and every illegal vote discarded.

"It sucked when they did it too"

It’s not whataboutism, it’s the normalization of violence for political goals and it’s been happening for the last decade. The people on the left that have been cheering on violence when it suited their goals are the ones who created this situation and should face the blame for all future violence.

ETA, to answer your question directly. Put it back on them.  Them them that they wanted political violence and they got it, it just didn’t turn out like they thought it would. Now it’s too late to put the genie back into the bottlle.

That's a deflection by someone that doesn't want to answer an uncomfortable question. The summer riots are very a recent memory and a perfectly legitimate topic to bring up. Ignoring one while being outraged by the other means accepting that violence and destruction are justified under certain conditions.

That's basically the gist of it. If the contending issue is whataboutism, that means both sides are essentially arguing in bad faith. This is because when whataboutism is used, both sides are deflecting from the issue that was raised. The logical next step should be to discuss the validity of the core issue (in this case it would be political violence.) If neither side is willing to do that and gets bogged down to arguing about whataboutism, it means both sides are holding double standards and deflecting (bad faith.) In a true argument both parties should be able and willing to concede points and come to some kind of agreement.

Point out the logical flaw in their reasoning.

Background reading

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

One interesting fallacy is the fallacy fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is the fallacy that you believe just because someone is fallacious, they are wrong. This is not necessarily true. Just because one makes a fallacious argument doesn't necessarily mean they've come to a false conclusion.

My response to a similar discussion started by Zhukov:

While I can wholely say that violence is not my preferred method of political discourse, Zhukov takes a position founded in idealism and skipping an entire year of the Overton Window being opened up, never mind the last decade.

Bush was in office, everyone was retarded warmongers following the monkey-Bush president. Burning the flag was acceptable, but protesting was to remain mostly peaceful. Coverage strictly one sided, few arrested.

Obama was in office, everyone who disagreed was racists. Those on the left were standing up for justice, and the "few trouble makers" were quietly dealt with, though mainly with kids gloves. Those on the right were racist trouble makers. Gun owners were racist while filming a black man carrying a rifle, with the zoom fully on the rifle so as not to see the black man carrying it.

Trump gets in office, protesting becomes a , "duty and obligation". The coverage of protests are overwhelmingly positive. Media carried hateful messaging to the people in a decidedly one directional matter. A baseball game was shot up by a deranged leftist and that single person,once linked, became 'not what we stand for, SEE LOOK WE SAID WE DON'T CONDOM IT' only to go right back into the political rhetoric. A Supreme Court Justice had a kangaroo court, complete with false accusations getting full prime time coverage without an iota of evidence. But don't worry, the media did their job to insulate the Democrat party members and ensure positive coverage to the left.

Fires erupted behind news reporters and Governors surveying damage were forced to flee. Attacks on Trump supporters were normalized. Kidnapping kids was treated like Jaywalking. State AGs ensured that rioters were let out of jail, uncharged. An organized resistance to law and order was formed, complete with phone numbers to lawyers funded by the Vice President and her staff. Hell, we weren't even allowed to ask about protesting for the purpose of COVID tracking.

That "normal and acceptable" form of protest was now violence. Violence against the community, the police, and the opposite political side. Murder in the street due to political leaning did not start with the right.

On 1/6 the Right walked through the window the Left opened and they were shocked. Only this time it wasn't the local Stop and Rob convenience store being burned. It wasn't the local hair salon being robbed, or the show store, or Best Buy and Walmart. It wasn't the police, white people, or the statues of long dead Americans being hit. The anger, through the window, was directed at  a legislature that had investigated ever nose hair on Trump but refused to look at massive voting irregularity. A judicial branch that has seen every "voter suppression" case they could find, but refused to hear last minute changes to State constitutions without the consent of the people.

With the anger being directed at them, the minions of Congress got scared and now we see the result. A combined effort to get the serfs in line.

I’ve had that happen. I point out that all whataboutism means is “Stop pointing out my blatant hypocrisy!” and it usually shuts them up.

That comes out when they have to admit that the contrasting event happened but want you held to the standard while that event is given a pass.  

It’s embracing hypocrisy and double standards and its a shit argument made by shit people.

Followed that with, some people did some things.

My personal favorite when arguing with mental midgets for LOLs is their "correlation is not causation!"
You bring up Chicago in regards to crime/murder with a firearm...how they have the most restrictive measures... yet highest homicide rate per FBI UCR...

Correlation is not causation.

Oh, good. Glad we're on the same page then. Because one mass murdering psycho is not just cause to restrict the rights of millions and future generations either because gun exists therefore we can not correlate all who own firearms are inherently evil.

Their shit for brains melt and go haywire.
And for lols hit them with the diverse list of mass shooters since they defined what a mass shooting is, and convienently only claim it's white supremacists who are armed with AR15s...

And for real LOLs have them define their buzzphrase-gun violence.

You pick the liberal, I'll reduce them into a screaming wailing unhinged foaming at the mouth crying babbling retard.

From some college graduate barista at Starbucks on up to the professor that taught them to the politician they endorsed.

The left has a real serious problem on their hands by using buzzwords which vary in definition person to person.
They also fucked up with allowing the mentally ill to "identify as".

Let one call you a white supremacist.
Tell them you identify as a half black half Jewish half Muslim transvestite and your pronouns are they/them and how you should be celebrated not condemned or discredited by a bigot such as themself.
Call them the bigot.

They wanted clown world? Give them clown world.
It's the most entertaining thing ever

Argue them into a corner and then have them define their own buzzwords and buzzphrases.
Watch as they discredit themselves within mere seconds.

It's hilarious.

Perfect

“Yes, hypocrites always hate when you point out their hypocrisy.”

Tell them to FOAD?

Whataboutism almost always means they lost the argument and know they did.  It’s the intellectuals version of yeah but I can bench more than you dude.

I yell louder and start escalating personal attacks.

OP, you might appreciate this analysis of exactly what you're describing.

https://www.city-journal.org/about-whataboutism-and-political-hypocrisy

And not nearly as many fires.

Whataboutism is not a proper logical fallacy. Whether or not someone's argument is hypocritical is a valid point, especially when dealing with ethical issues such as the appropriate behavior at a protest. The fact that the radical left did support widespread violence over a period of several months does in fact undermine their contention that the relatively minor incidents of violence and lawbreaking at the Washington DC rally was beyond the norms of acceptable conduct.

If we are a nation of laws, then different people doing the same thing should get treated the same.

If a person is consistent, then different people doing the same thing should be treated the same.  If not, then the person is being biased.

You can't be okay with one kid stealing a bag of chips and then have a problem with the next kid.  If you do...well, is it really because one stole BBQ flavored and one stole plain chips?  Or is it because the two kids are somehow different?

Edit to add:

Also, point out how many lefties (use a different term of course) are noting how the black rioters were treated by police vs the white capitol invaders - isn't that whataboutism?

I'd also say that the left was pretty vocal in whataboutism regarding the statements made upon the filing of the vacancy left by Scalia and the filling RBG's vacancy.

You can't reason with idiots.