whataboutism

From Debate to Deflection: Understanding Whataboutism

Whataboutism: The Art of Dodging Accountability

“What about them?” — a phrase we hear all too often in debates, newsrooms, and political discourse. Known as Whataboutism (or whataboutery), it’s a rhetorical tactic where instead of responding to criticism, one deflects attention to a different wrongdoing — usually by pointing fingers elsewhere.

What Is Whataboutism?

At its core, Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, a type of tu quoque ("you too") argument. Instead of addressing an issue directly, it sidesteps the criticism by accusing the other party of similar or worse behavior. This often leads to false equivalence and avoids accountability.

Classic Example:

A: “Your government censors dissenting voices.”

B: “What about your country? Doesn’t it spy on journalists?”

It’s not a defense — it’s a diversion.

A Cold War Legacy

The term gained popularity during the Cold War, when Soviet officials would respond to Western critiques (like lack of free speech) by saying, “What about racism in America?” The aim was not to address the critique, but to discredit the critic.

Modern-Day Whataboutism: Global Examples

Russia: When criticized for jailing political opponents, the Kremlin often retorts, “What about Guantanamo Bay?”

China: In response to international concerns over human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Chinese officials counter with, “What about the treatment of Indigenous people in Canada and Australia?”

India: When faced with questions over rising intolerance or censorship, defenders often reply, “What about Emergency-era censorship under Congress rule?” or “What about violence in other states ruled by opposition parties?”

United States: During debates on police brutality, some deflect by saying, “What about crime in Black communities?” — shifting blame rather than engaging with systemic issues.

Israel-Palestine discourse: Accusations of civilian casualties are frequently countered with, “What about Hamas firing rockets?”, deflecting attention from international humanitarian concerns.

These are not comparisons seeking mutual reform. They are distractions to avoid present accountability.

Why It’s Harmful

It derails dialogue: Shifting focus stops meaningful discussion.

It creates false equivalency: Not all wrongs are equal.

It impedes progress: Blame games replace solutions.

Where You’ll See It

Politics: Politicians use it to deflect corruption or policy failures.

Media: News debates often spiral into “what about them?” loops.

Social media: A hotbed for digital whataboutism, where reason often gives way to reflexive retorts.

Why Recognizing It Matters

Whataboutism might feel satisfying in the moment — it flips the script and spares one from answering tough questions. But in the long run, it weakens public discourse, silences reform, and reinforces division.

Final Thought

Critique is not invalidated by hypocrisy. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The presence of other injustices does not cancel out the one at hand. Recognizing Whataboutism is the first step toward more honest conversations — and more responsible citizenship.

How to counter Whataboutary?

Countering Whataboutism effectively requires calm, clarity, and a focus on restoring the original issue to the center of the discussion. Here are some of the best strategies:

1. Refocus the Conversation

Strategy: Gently bring the discussion back to the original topic.

Example Response:

"That’s a separate issue. Let’s first address the concern I raised. We can talk about other problems later, but this one deserves attention on its own.

2. Acknowledge, Then Redirect

Strategy: Briefly acknowledge the other concern (if valid) without letting it derail the main issue.

Example Response:

"Yes, that’s also a serious problem. But it doesn’t excuse or negate what we’re discussing right now."

3. Identify the Fallacy

Strategy: Call out Whataboutism as a distraction technique.

Example Response:

"That sounds like a whataboutism. Instead of dealing with this issue, you're changing the subject. Can we focus on the concern I raised?"

4. Separate Issues for Balanced Dialogue

Strategy: Encourage both issues to be discussed — but in turn, not as a way to deflect.

Example Response:

"Both topics matter. But deflecting one with the other doesn’t help either. Let's take them one at a time."

5. Ask a Clarifying Question

Strategy: Shift the burden back to the person making the deflection by encouraging them to engage with the original issue.

Example Response:

"Do you believe this action was acceptable, regardless of what others did?"

or

"Even if that’s true, what should be done about this current problem?"

6. Highlight the Intent

Strategy: Politely point out the effect of the deflection.

Example Response:

"When we shift blame without taking responsibility, we miss the chance to improve things."

7. Use Comparative Logic Cautiously

Strategy: If comparisons must be made, use them to seek common standards, not to excuse wrongdoing.

Example Response:

"Let’s agree that both cases show a pattern of injustice — and both deserve scrutiny."

Bonus Tip for Educators and Facilitators:

Encourage students or participants to analyze whataboutist arguments critically in group discussions or debates. 

Ask:

What is the main issue?

Is the comparison relevant or a distraction?

What is being avoided by raising a counter-example?

Final Note:

The key is not to escalate or become defensive. Whataboutism thrives on emotional diversion. Responding with firmness and fairness helps keep the dialogue productive and ethically grounded.

End Note:
This content was prepared with the assistance of OpenAI's ChatGPT, guided by prompts and editorial input from Prof. Dilip Barad. The ideas were developed collaboratively to enhance understanding of whataboutism in contemporary discourse.