What about Whataboutism?

References

• Aikin, S. F. 2008. “Tu Quoque Arguments and the Significance of Hypocrisy.” Informal Logic 28 (2): 155. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F., and J. Casey. 2022a. “Bothsiderism.” Argumentation 36 (2): 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09563-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F., and J. Casey. 2022b. “Fallacies of Meta-Argumentation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 55 (4): 360–385. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.4.0360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F., and J. Casey. 2022c. Straw Man Arguments: A Study in Fallacy Theory. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F., and J. Casey. 2023a. “Free Speech Fallacies As Meta-Argumentative Errors.” Argumentation 37 (2): 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09601-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F., and J. Casey. 2023b. “On Halting Meta-Argument with Para-Argument.” Argumentation 37 (3): 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09602-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikin, S. F., and J. Casey. 2024. “The Ambitious and the Modest Meta-Argumentation Theses.” Res Philosophica 101 (1): 163–170. https://doi.org/10.5840/resphilosophica20231229114.
   Google Scholar
• Barceló Aspeitia, A. A. 2020. “Whataboutisms and Inconsistency.” Argumentation 34 (4): 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09515-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowell, T. 2023. “Whataboutisms: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Informal Logic 43 (1): 91–112. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v43i1.7304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breakey, H. 2021. ““That’s Unhelpful, Harmful and Offensive!” Epistemic and Ethical Concerns with Meta-Argument Allegations.” Argumentation 35 (3): 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09538-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinton, A. 1995. “The Ad Hominem.” In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by H. V. Hansen and R. C. Pinto, 213–221. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, D. H. 2001. “Evaluating Arguments and Making Meta-Arguments.” Informal Logic 21 (2). https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i2.2238.
   Google Scholar
• Finocchiaro, M. A. 2005. Arguments About Arguments: Systematic, Critical, and Historical Essays in Logical Theory. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527517.
   Google Scholar
• Finocchiaro, M. A. 2007. “Arguments, Meta-Arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods.” Argumentation 21 (3): 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9055-x.
   Google Scholar
• Finocchiaro, M. A. 2013. Meta-Argumentation: An Approach to Logic and Argumentation Theory. London: College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kurtzleben, D. 2017. “Trump Embraces One of Russia’s Favorite Propaganda Tactics—Whataboutism.” National Public Radio. March 17. https://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, E. 2008. “Whataboutism: Come Again, Comrade?” Economist. January 31. https://www.economist.com/europe/2008/01/31/whataboutism.
   Google Scholar
• McQuade, B. 2023. “The Dangerous Whataboutism in the Trump Classified Docs Case.” Time. June 12. https://time.com/6286371/trump-classified-documents-indictment-whataboutism/.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connell, E. 2020. “Whataboutery.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (2): 243–254. https://doi.org/10.5840/ijap2021329148.
   Google Scholar
• Sinnott‐Armstrong, W. 2008. “A Contrastivist Manifesto.” Social Epistemology 22 (3): 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720802546120.
   Google Scholar
• Snedegar, J. 2015. “Contrastivism About Reasons and Ought: Contrastivism About Reasons and Ought.” Philosophy Compass 10 (6): 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tindale, C. W. 2007. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806544.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. 1998a. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. 1998b. The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Woods, J. 2007. “Lightening Up on the Ad Hominem.” Informal Logic 27 (1): 109. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v27i1.467.
   Google Scholar