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.
