From what I've seen, in context, a whataboutism is concerned about the argument of moral authority and precedent from the person accusing a AES or progressive of something bad...
Here's some rules:
Apply it when it relates to the precedent of incidents that seem exceptionally bad, when committed by Actually-Existing-Socialist countries, but are ignored, if not justified in Capitalist ones... they could be explained as historical thinking of the time or justified under circumstances
For example: https://hexbear.net/post/2329752 (Homosexuality laws compared between historical Soviet Union and the West, lemmygrad meme)
However, don't use irrelevant ones to detract from past mistakes, they make you look daft and aloof
I'll explain more later on...
You will never ever own a lib by catching them saying something hypocritical. They don't care. They care a lot about hypocrisy when a republican does it but not when they do it. They have their alternative facts that they have decided are 'reality' (like Russia using shovels to fight or whatever) even if real reality flies in the face of that. These facts shield them from hypocrisy.
Also arguing with libs online is an enormous waste of time, just find a better hobby.
Case and point, they inveted the word whataboutism to redefine "obvious hypocrisy" so that pointing out their shameless hypocrisy doesn't count because they're the ones keeping score.
Also arguing with libs online is an enormous waste of time
The internet is an enormous radicalizing tool. Posting is the agitprop of the 21st century.
Also arguing with libs online is an enormous waste of time, just find a better hobby.
I know, it's just that I just scroll down posts and end up looking at online arguments involving that all the above...
Also arguing with libs online is an enormous waste of time, just find a better hobby.
it's not about the lib you're talking to directly, it's about the ones reading the conversation who are less on the defense against your points. Literally right now I don't expect to change your mind on the topic but rather to encourage and reassure other people who will see this.
Imagine actually taking debates with braindead libs seriously. They aren't arguing in good faith so there's really no point in us either. Libs are idealists; facts are material and therefore don't matter to them. You can't argue with an idealist by giving them facts, it doesn't work that way.
Its more the outsiders not the libs, if I'm being honest...
Besides, if I wanted to argue with more bad faith libs (outside of Lemmy), it would be in Reddit but I don't...
Sorry pal if I included ye here...
Yea don't worry about overusing it it because no matter how perfectly you use it they'll just dismiss it.
You can point out the fact they're being shameless uninformed hypocrisy, literally demonizing somebody for something while they personally help enact a more egregious version of that thing, and they'll stay say your criticisms are invalid.
They'll knock you over the head, rod you blind and take all the clothes off of your back then turn around and condemn you for stealing from their garden. If you point out you had to because they robbed you blind and you'd starve otherwise they'll call it whatabaoutism.
Tons of leftists were once libs and we need a lot more people on our side before we can get much done. We have to get new leftists from somewhere -- if we write off all libs, where are we going to get all our people from?
"We can never stop explaining"IRL sure, but online headass libs? "We can never stop dunking"
A lot of people get radicalized (at least in part) from what they read on the internet. Dunks can be an effective way to get a point across, but they probably work best when complimented with more straightforward arguments.
They're always gonna lib out and let the mask slip in so doing; so use their weapons against them at every turn.
whataboutism 
