Despite being very common in both public and private argumentation, accusations of selective application of general premises, also known as “whataboutisms”, have been mostly overlooked in argumentation studies, where they are, at most, taken as accusations of inconsistency. Here I will defend an account according to which allegations of this sort can express the suspicion that the argumentation put forward by one party does not reflect his or her actual standpoint and reasons. Distinguishing this kind of argumentative moves is important for evaluating its appropriateness in critical discussions where knowing the honest opinion of arguers is relevant, as in political controversies or interpersonal communication.

中文翻译：

---

Whataboutisms 和不一致

尽管在公共和私人论证中非常普遍，但选择性应用一般前提的指控，也称为“whataboutisms”，在论证研究中大多被忽视，最多被视为不一致的指控。在这里，我将捍卫一个说法，根据该说法，此类指控可以表达对一方提出的论点并未反映其实际立场和理由的怀疑。区分这种辩论动作对于评估其在批判性讨论中的适当性很重要，在这些讨论中，了解辩论者的诚实意见是相关的，例如在政治争议或人际交往中。