I'm not sure I understand your point about context. Logically consistent arguments are allowed to factor in context. If you state that historical events should be analyzed in their context, this would become logically inconsistent if you then reject considering the context in another instance.

The point is that whatever standard you use, whatever analysis, worldview, or philosophical lens you're applying, you shouldn't completely contradict all of it just when it becomes inconvenient.

If you believe context matters then context always should matter. If you do not believe context should matter then contact shouldn't matter. If you think context should matter only in specific cases, you need to lay out pretty clear arguments to why you think it should apply in some cases and not others.

Whatever position you're taking, you need to be clear and consistent with it. If you just change your argument and contradict yourself when it's politically convenient, that is just being dishonest. That's what I'm criticizing, you seem to have taken some quote I said about being logically consistent and then concluded strange things from it like you can't have context or something.

There may technically be a form of "whataboutism" that is fallacious, but I've never seen it even once. Maybe it might exist in some textbook or blog or encyclopedia somewhere, but in the real world I simply do not see people using "whataboutism" fallaciously.