whataboutism - discrediting a criticism by accusing hypocrisy to shift the focus away from oneself and onto others.

Whataboutism is a variant of tu quoque (Latin for "you too"), a logical fallacy that deflects criticism by suggesting that any notion of hypocrisy—whether on the critic’s part or anyone else’s—renders the critique irrelevant. While this maneuver may appear to expose bias or inconsistency, whataboutism ultimately serves as a distraction rather than a rebuttal, leaving the original criticism unanswered.

---

The Psychology Behind Whataboutism

Whataboutism works because it appeals to our innate sense of fairness and aversion to double standards, making it a particularly persuasive technique. By introducing allegations of hypocrisy, it can trigger moral outrage, leveraging attention redirection - The strategic manipulation of focus to divert attention away from one issue and toward another, often by evoking strong emotional responses.
to divert the audience’s focus. This reaction often overrides logical reasoning, as audiences become fixated on the alleged hypocrisy rather than addressing the original critique.

Whataboutism also exploits the human tendency to favor emotionally charged arguments over logical clarity. When faced with a comparison that evokes outrage or moral indignation, audiences are more likely to react emotionally than to pause and analyze the validity of the equivalence. By tapping into strong emotions like anger, guilt, or frustration, whataboutism creates a powerful distraction that overrides the audience’s ability to focus on the original critique. This emotional engagement is particularly effective in public debates, where sensationalism often overshadows nuanced reasoning.

---

How Whataboutism Leverages other Logical Fallacies

The technique also leverages other logical fallacies, such as false equivalency and false dichotomy, to amplify its impact. False equivalency tricks the audience into accepting an apples-to-apples comparison between two issues that may differ significantly in scale, context, or relevance.

For example, a politician criticized for earning millions of dollars through paid speeches to Wall Street firms responds by pointing out that her opponent has also received money from the same firms. However, the amount her opponent received is only a small fraction of what she earned, and it came in the form of unsolicited campaign contributions, not personal income. By presenting this false equivalence as a whataboutism, she shifts attention onto her opponent.

Whataboutism also thrives on false dichotomy—the mistaken notion that one cannot address both the original issue and the one whatabouted into the conversation. This creates a dynamic where meaningful discourse is sidelined, replaced by a tug-of-war over unrelated issues. In doing so, it makes both parties involved more focused on pointing out the hypocrisy of the other side than engaging with the original argument, which is precisely the point.

---

Why Whataboutism Is Difficult to Disarm

Whataboutism’s strength lies in its ability to derail meaningful discourse. By shifting the focus to a secondary issue, it forces critics to respond to the new claim, often at the expense of the original argument. This tactic also capitalizes on the audience’s limited attention span and their preference for sensational or emotionally charged comparisons over substantive discussions. Worse still, efforts to counter whataboutism can leave critics appearing evasive or defensive, further undermining their position.

A further challenge lies in distinguishing between a legitimate critique of hypocrisy and a whataboutism. While some accusations of hypocrisy can reveal underlying factors that contribute to questionable actions, whataboutism introduces equivalencies that, even if valid, are often irrelevant to the behavior being criticized. The distinction therefore lies in the relevance of the equivalence. If the equivalence had no role in enabling the questionable behavior of the one accusing hypocrisy, it serves only as a distraction.

---

Identifying and Challenging Whataboutism

Recognizing whataboutism requires understanding its hallmarks: the introduction of a secondary issue, an accusation of hypocrisy, and an implicit attempt to distract from the original criticism. When faced with whataboutism, it is crucial to separate the original critique from the diversion and evaluate each claim independently. While the new issue may warrant discussion, it does not invalidate the initial argument.

Questioning the relevance and validity of the comparison is also key to dismantling whataboutism and refocusing the conversation on the issue at hand. The defining factor is determining whether the equivalence is both valid and relevant to the behavior being criticized. If not, it is a whataboutism.

Interviews related to whataboutism