How whataboutism can sometme be valid, and calling something a whataboutism can be a BS counterargument

Whataboutism can be misused but it can also be valid.

In many cases so called whataboutism is merely pointing out

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses"

or Jesus's famous statement

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

True, it can be misused to divert a topic.  But it can also be used to clearly state an apparent hypocritical stance, when one allows, tolerates, or even promotes worse from other groups one favors.

If you point out the hypocrisy of someone, it is not invalid or an error to point such.  And the person should define why the claim of hypocrisy is wrong, not merely try to silence the opposition by claiming whataboutism.

"So I'm a hypocrite pointing it out is not valid!" "whataboutism SHUT UP!"  And then completely ignore their apparent cognitive dissonance that has just been pointed out and brought into the light.

It can be valid because if you tolerate or advocate for the same on some group, and not this one, either there is no real issue with it, and you're just maligning another group on what you believe is a nonissue or you have to clarify or at least own up to your hypocrisy.   Banning, Censoring, etc And claiming whataboutism, that does not make the hypocrisy go away, that does not make the inconsistency on your stance go away.

And it is something relevant to many a debate, why exactly do you implicitly allow, condone, tolerate, etc such or similar or worse from your own side?  Pointing out that you're inconsistent, and that similar goes uncalled elsewhere by you or your team is perfectly valid in my book.