This post is inspired by the comments that a friend of mine consistently gets on her Facebook posts. In her case these particular comments fall into one of two categories: “Not all…” and “What about…”
Let’s start with “Not all…” Not all cops. Not all white people. Not all men. Not all white women. When “not all …” is used as a response to experiences it silences and shames. It makes the speaker think their story is worthless and insignificant. The response “Yeah, but I’m not like that!” derails the conversation, and dismisses lived experiences by refocusing the conversation away from the actual problem and places the person saying “not all…” at the center. The “not all…” responder holds hostage the conversation about the problem until everyone acknowledges that they, personally, are not to blame. It’s basically saying, “Enough about you, what about me!” to a person who is in the process of sharing their pain.
And because the “not all…” responder is not at fault the problem is not their problem. Saying “not all…” in response to being made aware of a societal issue or a story about a terrible thing that happened to an individual, a person, renounces all responsibility for the issue. It ignores the fact that though we are personally not responsible for a societal concern we, as part of society, still need to be part of any solution. Instead it says, “Not my elephants, not my circus.”
Most often “not all…” is said as a form of self-defense of the ego. Usually in a manner that is either hostile or passive aggressive. When people are defensive, they aren’t listening to the other person. They’re too busy thinking of ways to defend themselves. To halt the conversation by interjecting “not all…” in order to complain of a perceived generalization is to avoid addressing and listening to the actual concerns being raised. This response makes it harder to find solutions. By aggressively trying to defer or even stop advancement by insisting that they and their in-group be freed of culpability before other people can get on with progressing toward equality the “not all…” responder is not only being unhelpful they are making themselves part of the problem.
On to “What about…” According to Wikipedia:
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. In the United States it is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be “What about…” followed by an event in the Western world.
It works like this: First, refuse to engage the original question. Instead fire back a different question. Second, the question has to be, at best, tangential to what was asked. This is not a question asked for clarification. In practice, the response often has no connection to the initial question at all. In essence, it’s an appeal to duplicity. Instead of proving that the claim is wrong, “What about…” argues that it’s hypocritical of the claimant to say anything on the subject at all. It is an attempt to discredit without actually having to counter or invalidate the other person’s claim.
The problem is that hypocrisy is a ubiquitous and durable part of the human condition, but it doesn’t cancel out the actual problems under discussion. The systemic human rights issues of other countries that were pointed out by the USSR were real, not lies or propaganda. But those violations don’t make the violations of the Soviets disappear. We may have to wait for he who is without sin to throw the first stone but we don’t have to be pure to work toward progress. We don’t have to achieve a state of perfection before we can strive to apply the values to which we aspire or to hold each other accountable for bad behavior.
It’s a tactic that disrupts a conversation and is often used when a person lacks ammunition in an argument. Saying “What about…” means the responder can’t add anything meaningful to the argument to prove their own point or to discredit the opposition. Instead of talking about the issue at hand “What about…” can act as a complete distraction by derailing the conversation into what the respondent wants to talk about instead.
Lastly, “What about…” can be used to create a false equivalency. False equivalency is a logical fallacy where there appears to be an equality between two opposing arguments, when in fact one side has a significantly higher superiority and quantity of evidence. In the media, social and otherwise, there is a push to believe that saying “both sides do it” or presenting both sides as equal is a way to avoid the appearance of bias in a dispute. On the contrary, drawing false equivalence is not only taking sides- it’s taking the wrong side. In conflating both sides as equal false equivalency not only overstates proof in support a weak or even false claim but also devalues the evidence on the other side.
To recap: not only is “not all…” claiming ownership of someone else’s pain and making it a personal persecution, it distances the responder from the problem and diminishes the need to provide help. It’s definitely not being a good friend. Meanwhile, “What about…” ignores dealing with the actual problem entirely through subterfuge and deflection. Rather than ejaculating “Not all!” or “What about!” make sure that anything said in response to an issue is constructive rather than destructive. Communicate ways to alleviate the problem, rather than just detracting from people brave enough to speak up. Most of all, LISTEN.