I often hear people reject arguments in discussions as “whataboutisms”. The idea is that whataboutisms - “ok, you’re angry about thing A, but what about thing B and thing C” - effectively undermine any kind of critique.

I understand this wariness. Especially when it is done on purpose and in bad faith, it is a dangerously easy way to kill any political talk.¹

Still, I wonder why pointing out the ubiquity of injustice should necessarily lead to some kind of cynical fatalism. Why - when the whatboutism is done without too much snobbery or moral high grounds - the response cannot be something like “yes, actually you’re right: thing A sucks, but fuck things B and C as well”.

Some people might say that an idea like degrowth is (in a disqualifying way) “radical”, but it is the current system that is radical. It is undermining the very basis of everyday life. On a global scale. For (at least) centuries to come. No system or group of people has ever been so close to realizing something so utterly insane. If the path you walk leads to large-scale destruction, it’s the “prudent conservatives” who are the irresponsible radical nutcrackers.

Every day a certain amount of work is done. Food is grown. Machines are built and operated. Stuff is transported. If I would add up all the time - the seconds, minutes, hours - that other people work to provide me with the things that I consume, would I arrive at 1 FTE? 2 FTE? 5?¹ In other words: BP may have tricked me into thinking about my carbon footprint, but what is my labour foot print??

Conservatives often want to stop the world from changing, unless this requires them to change their own ways. In that case they prefer to deny that the world is changing.