by Peter Löcke //
We live in a world of Anglicisms. That bothers and annoys me, but it's the way it is. I come across the Anglicism in many digital discussions Whataboutism. Sometimes also as a reproach.
Whataboutism is a manipulative, evasive communication technique. It is a method of ignoring a critical question or argument from the other person. How do I do it? By simply responding with a counter-question, by distracting from the topic and creating side issues. And, above all, by brazenly switching roles. In other words, by changing from the attacked to the attacker. Unfortunately, everyone tends to do this. Even me, at least on bad days. Perhaps also because I don't have a spontaneous counter-argument. It's human to a certain extent.
"But you! What I always wanted to tell you! And anyway!"
Anyone who has never reacted in this childish way to an accusation in an emotional argument with their partner should step forward. Whataboutism is often an unconscious biting reflex when you are criticized. Every talk show, every federal press conference, every question time in the Bundestag is full of whataboutism, full of diversionary maneuvers. Unlike in the private sphere, these diversionary tactics are used deliberately and purposefully in politics. It is more subtle and rhetorically skillful.
Prologue: On March 18, 2022, an educational play about psychology and communication techniques took place. The venue for the performance was the Schauspielhaus Bundestag. The main roles were played by AfD MP Stephan Brandner and Health Minister Karl Lauterbach from the SPD. Christine Aschenberg-Dugnus, a member of the FDP, played a supporting role.
The first act: In his speech, Stephan Brandner described Karl Lauterbach as a liar and gave specific examples of this. Among other things, he confronted the talk show king with his apocalyptic claim that everyone would either be vaccinated, recovered or dead by March 2022. He, Brandner, was living proof to the contrary. So am I, by the way, and it is now May. Alone on his ministerial bench, his arms crossed stubbornly, Lauterbach slumped down more and more. Almost like a pupil who has been caught messing up and cheating during his A-level exams. Did Brandner want to show Lauterbach up and make him look ridiculous? Of course he did.
The second act: Karl Lauterbach is allowed to intervene verbally on Anne Will, but not in the Bundestag. For better or worse, he had to listen to the riot act being read to him. At least Lauterbach was able to respond afterwards. A new regulation in the Bundestag makes this possible for both chancellors and ministers. So Lauterbach stood up at the end of Brandner's speaking time and walked, no, shuffled to a standing microphone in the plenary. No longer isolated and in the middle of his own. That makes a big difference psychologically. The core message, the essence of Lauterbach's reaction to Brandner's accusation:
"We Democrats will not allow ourselves to be called liars."
Note the word "we". Lauterbach's reaction was cheap. A whataboutism. But it was also brilliant because it worked. Was Lauterbach able to refute the specific accusation of lying directed exclusively at him? Refute it with arguments? No. How could he? But he was able to transform his own exposure and move from the role of perpetrator to that of victim. Lauterbach transformed a personal attack into a general attack on all MP. The real message of his answer was:
The AfD is undemocratic. We, all other parties, are democratic.
Accordingly, there was applause from the entire plenary, with the exception of the AfD. Lauterbach's reaction was a diversionary tactic. A whataboutism. This can be analysed soberly regardless of one's own point of view on the polarizing AfD. Even if you think Lauterbach is right here.
The third act: Mr. Brandner had the last word as speaker. Lauterbach should be glad that he had only called him a liar. Silence in the hall. Then Christine Aschenberg-Dugnus from the FDP came to the lectern. Highly emotional, visibly upset by what had just happened. After all, she was also called a liar. Was she? No. Karl Lauterbach only let you and everyone believe that she was. Thanks to whataboutism. Thanks to deception. Ms. Aschenberg-Dugnus deviated from her speech script and launched a furious counterattack. The AfD had claimed that hospitals had never been overloaded. This was not true, as there had been emergency transfers of patients to other hospitals. The crux of the matter here is not the weakness of the argument, as such transfers have always taken place. The crux of the matter is the furious sentence that followed. Aschenberg-Dugnus shouted in the direction of Brandner and the AfD:
"In this respect, you are also telling an untruth here."
Note the word "also". Ms. Aschenberg-Dugnus felt insulted as a liar, which she was not. And then replied to the alleged attacker that he was also lying. At this point, the drama finally turned into a comedy. It was like in private in a weak moment. Slapstick.
But you! You're no better! You lied too, and anyway!
Epilogue: The bottom line is that whataboutism is the misuse of language to deceive. And where there is abuse, there is unfortunately always abuse of abuse. Most topics can be viewed from a wide variety of angles. If your opponent only allows his own point of view, he will say the following to you as a knock-down argument in a discussion:
" Whataboutism. I'm not even going to go into your whataboutism."
Articles identified by name do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher.
English 
German 
Spanish
9 Responses
How do you do?
So what I find even worse than the debates and backbiting in the Bundestag are talk shows in which the discussion partners don't let each other finish. It's so exhausting. And you simply don't experience objective discourse anymore, so you can't or shouldn't take it seriously. I'm always amused by the comments underneath, if they're allowed. Times of domination! I often think the same way and simply ask myself why, from my point of view, nothing clever can get through.
Communication technologies are not the problem,
but people,
who work for or call a system,
if they are not ready, willing or/and able,
in a peaceful way in voluntary cooperation with their fellow human beings
to realize and satisfy their own goals and needs,
but like a defiant toddler want to see their will fulfilled,
what they use the system for,
which has the power,
their goals and needs at the expense and to the detriment of peaceful fellow human beings
on the threat and use of coercion and force
for them.
The people who suffer most from such a system are
the people who are really in need.
Thanks again for this contribution.
This is where my favorite unword of politicians actually comes into play, the now so frequently used word: "we". Who or what is "we". I am not "we". They want to involve me in something with which I really have zero consensus. Lauterbach or others like to use personal pronouns to appropriate a strength they don't have. What would be the difference if he said: "I". Then he would be alone. But the "we" makes him seem much stronger. I had an experience in which I once encountered someone like this, not a bad person (setting: two people alone): He pointed his finger at me, which I already hate, but it's even worse when this finger pokes me and then says the following: because of "you", "we" have to wear masks.
Dear Eva,
Dr. Reinhard Sprenger's book on this topic is highly recommended and suitable for everyday use: "The decision is yours". In it, he describes, also with drastic examples, how to live self-responsibility. For example, always speak in the first person, unless of course you are actually and seriously representing a group that has commissioned you in an individual case. Example from an airplane: "Unfortunately, we cannot allow you to smoke". Instead, it should read: "Smoking is not permitted on this aircraft". The "we can" shifts the blame to an unknown, higher authority, just to avoid taking responsibility yourself. And a very important core message of this book: the only thing a person really MUST do is die at some point. Everything else is, as stupid as it may be for the individual, their own decisions between several possibilities. For example, if you say A, you don't HAVE to say B. They can also live with the consequences. And if they don't want to, it's still their decision. Or: The phone stopped me... The phone can't stop me because it's only made of plastic, wires etc. No, I decided to stop it. No, I have decided to prioritize the phone call over my date.
I have found that most people are very reluctant to follow this train of thought because it is so unpleasant to suddenly realize that you are responsible.
If you're successful, it's the other way around, of course, as you're suddenly always entirely responsible... 🙂
Dear friends,
What more do we want? See the decision of the Constitutional Court in Austria on the "lockdowns for the unvaccinated", see the campaign there for "booster vaccinations" (regardless of all current knowledge), see the reactions to the hearing of Dr. Gunter Frank before the Health Committee, see the renewed nuclear tests by the madman in North Korea... we could go on and on. All that remains is a good whisky and not giving up hope. I always think of Alice Herz-Sommer, two world wars, concentration camps and whatever else, and yet she lived to be 110 years old in the best of moods. Life is going on...
I saw and heard the play, smiled, then laughed out loud ... and forbid myself to have these reactions in the future; at least I have resolved to do so.
The 'theater (educational) play' showed the depravity of an entire global community:
They just don't get it anymore.
They are victims. By profession or by vocation.
Who knows, considering that neuro-linguistic programming = NLP was flushed into German living rooms by the Bundestag in the mid-nineties.
In times when victims have long been 'turned' into perpetrators, perpetrators into victims and pseudo-psychologists and analysts are booming, it is very clear that victim status generates cash flows.
Markets have been created. Lauterbauch knows that too.
At least I hope so, because I'm still clinging to my hope that a single person can't be that stupid after all, which brings us to the next whataboutism: Swarm intelligence.
"...from being attacked to becoming the attacker..." - No, no: the bite reflex works the other way round: the attacker portrays himself as being attacked and as a victim. Reversing guilt and responsibility is part of the narcissistic behavior complex. The personality-disordered narcissist himself has no problem with this - only everyone else...it's just frightening how narcissism has a destructive effect at all levels, right up to the highest political levels.
In principle, my experience is similar. But there is also a bit of distraction in your article. The term lie does not correctly describe the facts when Mr. Lauterbach claims that everyone will have been vaccinated, recovered or died in March 2022. It is a deception that was irresponsible and very distressing for many people because of his title and his official status and the blackmailing intention. I also do not understand why Mr. Brandner did not describe the diversionary maneuver in his answer, and that this maneuver is also a confirmation of Mr. Lauterbach's irresponsible behavior.
Dear Mr. Dulat,
Due to the length of the column, I have omitted or shortened some of the text and in some cases I have reproduced it analogously. In addition, there is always a subjective note in every description of a play (and it was a play). So your criticism is justified. Since I couldn't find the original of the debate on phoenix on the spur of the moment and I don't want to link to party channels, I took the trouble to transcribe Lauterbach's answer and Brandner's subsequent reaction. Unannotated.
Lauterbach: "I would simply like to say for all of us, for the democratic parties speaking here, we do not want to be defamed here as liars ... we do not want to be defamed here as liars. We have different opinions on the matter at any time ...., but as far as the democratic parties are concerned ... no liars are speaking here."
Brandner: "Mr. Lauterbach. In my eyes, a liar is someone who tells the untruth at least once, even though he knows the truth. Mr. Lauterbach ... you ... have been telling us untruths non-stop for two years, although you probably know the truth. So be glad that I only called you a liar and didn't use other words."