system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Accusing someone of “whataboutism” is a lazy excuse to deflect from criticism of your viewpoint and is rarely done in good faith.

Title. Essentially I feel there’s a rampant plague of people crying “whataboutism” on this site every time someone calls out their hypocrisy, especially concerning political discussions that beg for more nuance than is being allotted. It’s a lazy technique to shut someone down for pointing out what is often times a valid counterpoint or exposure of logical inconsistency.

Even if the person being accused is partaking in bath-faith argumentation, claiming whataboutism and leaving the discussion is a weaker response and oftentimes allows the opposition to conclude that you have no response and therefore they are correct.
gpt
The murderer is allowed to say that theft is wrong. The thief is allowed to say that arson is wrong. The arsonist is allowed to say that murder is wrong. 

One need not be morally pure, to be correct when one points out the moral flaws of others. 

As such, "pointing out hypocrisy" doesn't advance the argument. Someone doing something evil, doesn't make them incorrect when they state that the deed is evil when performed by others. 

This is why whataboutism isn't lazy, and actually rather important. When china does something bad, and the us says stop it, china pointing to the usas many sins in no way absolves china of its own. Ditto for Democrats and republicans or any other two groups who often attack each other. 

Attacking the messenger is always a fallacy. Even if the messenger is morally worse than you, it doesn't absolve you of your sin to point that fact out. You committed your sin, regardless of the messenger who states that fact.