Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. In international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such.[17]
Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.[135][136]
Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that accusations of whataboutism have been used to simply deflect criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies.[137] They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard,[138] and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.[139]
The scholars Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon posit that mentioning the possible existence of victims of capitalism in popular discourse is often dismissed as "whataboutism", which they describe as "a term implying that only atrocities perpetrated by communists merit attention." They also argue that such accusations of "whataboutism" are invalid as the same arguments used against communism can also be used against capitalism.[140]
ストックホルム大のジャーナリズム学の教授であるクリスチャン・クリステンセンは、 whataboutismという非難そのものが「お前だって論法」の誤謬の一形態だと論じる。というのは、それは他者の行動に焦点を当てるために自身の行動への批判を退けて、二重基準を作り出してしまうからである。Whataboutismを用いる人は必ずしも空虚ないし冷笑的な責任逃れをしているわけではない。Whataboutismは矛盾や二重基準や偽善を明らかにする有用なツールとなり得る*2*3


Why is “whataboutism” frown upon and how else should one argue if not by analogy and comparing?
A lot of political arguments are about one side saying something is bad, and the other side saying “but you’re doing the same thing”. And then the argument against that whole debate is “stop with the whataboutism”. To me, a large part of discussing and understanding is to find metaphors and analogies. A “if what you do is right then what I do can’t be wrong because it’s the same thing” is a valid argument to me, yet it is “whataboutism”.
Are there any philosophers who discuss right and wrong, where the reasoning is completely disconnected from the outer world?
「whataboutism」はなぜ顰蹙を買うのでしょうか? 比喩や比較を使わなければどのように議論すれば良いというのでしょうか?


Using metaphor and analogy is not the problem for whataboutism or tu quoque fallacies in general.
Using comparison is fine, but it becomes fallacious when it's used as a red herring tactic to deflect criticism. The existence of wrong-doing elsewhere does not justify specific cases of similar wrong-doing.

*1:原注:Lucas, Edward (29 October 2007). "In Russia's shadow – The Kremlin's useful idiots". Retrieved 22 July 2017. "It is not a bad tactic. Every criticism needs to be put in a historical and geographical context. A country that has solved most of its horrible problems deserves praise, not to be lambasted for those that remain. Similarly, behaviour that may be imperfect by international standards can be quite good for a particular neighbourhood."

*2:原注:Christensen, Christian (26 January 2015). "We need 'whataboutism' now more than ever". Al-Jazeera English. Retrieved 16 August 2018.

*3:原注:Yagoda, Ben (19 July 2018). "One Cheer for Whataboutism". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 August 2018. Tu quoque is a subset of the so-called ad hominem argument: a strike against the character, not the position, of one’s opponent. Ad hominem gets a bad press, but it isn’t without merit, when used in good faith. It’s useful in an argument to show that the stance being taken against you is inconsistent or hypocritical. It doesn’t win the day, but it chips away at your opponent’s moral standing and raises doubt about the entirety of his or her position.

*4:原注:"Риторика холодной войны на фоне нарушения прав человека в США" [Cold War rhetoric against a backdrop of human rights violations in the USA]. 1News Azerbaijan (in Russian). 26 August 2014. Retrieved 16 August 2018.

*5:原注:Mark, Adomanis (6 March 2013). "Saudi Arabia, Russia, The Magnitsky Act, And 'Whataboutism'". Forbes. Archived from the original on 29 August 2014. Retrieved 16 August 2018.

*6:原注:"Риторика холодной войны на фоне нарушения прав человека в США" [Cold War rhetoric against a backdrop of human rights abuses in the USA]. 1 News Azerbaijan (in Russian). 26 August 2014. Retrieved 16 August 2018. «Права человека – это дубинка в руках сильных мира сего, которую они используют, когда кто-то вокруг проявляет непослушание», - убежден азербайджанский политический деятель Араз Ализаде, возглавляющий Социал-демократическую партию Азербайджана. (Translation: "'Human rights is a stick in the hands of the powers of the world, that they use to beat anyone who disobeys them' says Araz Alizade, leader of the Social-Democratic Party of Azerbaijan")

*7:原注:Ghodsee, Kristen R.; Sehon, Scott (22 March 2018). "Anti-anti-communism". Aeon. Retrieved 1 October 2018. ”But the problem for the anti-communists is that their general premise can be used as the basis for an equally good argument against capitalism, an argument that the so-called losers of economic transition in eastern Europe would be quick to affirm. The US, a country based on a free-market capitalist ideology, has done many horrible things: the enslavement of millions of Africans, the genocidal eradication of the Native Americans, the brutal military actions taken to support pro-Western dictatorships, just to name a few. The British Empire likewise had a great deal of blood on its hands: we might merely mention the internment camps during the second Boer War and the Bengal famine. This is not mere ‘whataboutism’, because the same intermediate premise necessary to make their anti-communist argument now works against capitalism: Historical point: the US and the UK were based on a capitalist ideology, and did many horrible things. General premise: if any country based on a particular ideology did many horrible things, then that ideology should be rejected. Political conclusion: capitalism should be rejected."