Whataboutism is a technique that employs false moral equivalence to silence your opponents. It takes the form of an argument, but it isn’t really an argument at all. Instead, whataboutism uses a moral principle as a defence for indefensible behaviour. For example:
“The United States should move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem because this is something all other countries have done.”
Whataboutism is an argument in which a moral principle is invoked to defend an action that is otherwise indefensible. It can seem persuasive, but only because it is a false analogy.
Whataboutism is often used by politicians, religious leaders and other public figures to deflect attention from the issue at hand or shift blame or responsibility onto others. It’s frequently used in politics to avoid answering questions about current events and history—and in everyday life as well to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions.
The goal of whataboutism is to convince your audience that the actions of others are not as bad as the actions of your opponent. The reasoning behind this is simple. If everyone else is doing it, then it must be okay and therefore you should too!
The most common form of whataboutism is when one party points out an action by another person or group, then says “What about [insert another group/person]?” For example:
- “You shouldn’t cheat on a test.”
- “What about John? He always cheats on tests.”
- Whataboutism is one particular kind of ad hominem attack that takes the form of asking a question or making a statement about someone else’s actions to distract from an argument you’re losing.
It usually takes the form of an ad hominem attack.
Ad hominem attacks are not always fallacious.
This is usually done by bringing up an irrelevant point or a counterargument that doesn’t address your opponent’s original claim. The goal is to divert attention away from what you are being criticized for and instead focus on something else, like how the other person behaves or what they’ve said in the past.
This isn’t always fallacious – sometimes it’s okay to bring up another example when trying to prove your own point. However, if used too often or in place of real arguments, it can have a negative impact on your credibility as well as cause confusion among listeners who don’t know why you’re diverting their attention elsewhere!
Whataboutism has a smug tone and comes wrapped in moral indignation.
Whataboutism is a rhetorical strategy. It’s not an argument. It doesn’t contribute to the discussion but instead attempts to shut down more nuanced arguments by shifting the focus away from the issue at hand and onto something else—usually someone else’s alleged wrongdoing. This can be done in two ways:
- Deflecting attention away from one’s own behaviour by pointing out another person or group’s past or present misdeeds (e.g., “What about what Trump said about women? You think that was okay?”)
- Accusing someone of hypocrisy for calling out you for doing what they themselves did (or still do) (e.g., “How can you say I shouldn’t be racist when you’re a bigot too? Whataboutism!”).
On its own, whataboutism doesn’t make any sense. It’s just rhetoric designed to silence other voices. Nevertheless, it often functions as a standard defence against charges of bigotry or racism.
On its own, whataboutism doesn’t make any sense. It’s just rhetoric designed to silence other voices. Nevertheless, it often functions as a standard defence against charges of bigotry or racism.
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy that is often used in debates in an attempt to change the subject from an issue by bringing up another issue (usually one that favours the person using it). It is sometimes referred to as tu quoque (“you too”) or hypocrisy; however, “whataboutism” can be seen as more encompassing than these terms because it can refer to any time someone attempts to deflect criticism by comparing themselves with someone else who may not have done anything wrong.
Whataboutist arguments, in general, can be recognized with the following characteristics:
Whataboutist arguments, in general, can be recognized with the following characteristics:
- They begin with moral claims about what the target is doing or not doing. For example: “You should stop using plastic straws.”
- They end with examples of positive attributes evidenced by the target. For example: “But you recycle!” The implication here is that if you’re recycling and still engaging in other harmful practices (like using plastic straws), then those other practices don’t really matter at all—or that they’re somehow excusable because they’re balanced out by your recycling habits.
- They assume that the target has no valid rebuttal in defence of his/her actual behaviour—and therefore, it doesn’t matter whether or not there’s evidence to back up this assumption; other people will just believe it anyway because there’s no real way for anyone else to prove otherwise!
They begin with moral claims about what the target is doing or not doing; they end with examples of positive attributes evidenced by the target, and they assume that the target has no valid rebuttal in defence of his/her actual behaviour.
Whataboutism, a common tactic among Trump supporters, is an ad hominem attack. It’s a false analogy. It’s a rhetorical strategy used to avoid responsibility and change the subject (you can hear it in the way they say “what about” as well as their tone).
It is not an argument. It is not an attempt at persuasion or even persuasion-lite: it is a strategy that seeks to reduce your opinion to nothingness by making you feel bad about yourself for having one.
In other words, whataboutism is a form of moral argument: it attempts to make one feel morally inferior order not only because one shouldn’t be having the opinion in the first place but also because one shouldn’t feel entitled enough to defend said opinion against such attacks!
Even if you think you are being reasonable while using whataboutism in your argument, you’re wrong and you should stop
Even if you think you are being reasonable while using whataboutism in your argument, you’re wrong and you should stop. Whataboutism is a false analogy that often takes the form of an ad hominem attack. It can seem persuasive, but only because it’s a false analogy; the argument doesn’t actually make sense—it just uses evidence from one thing to prove another thing. For example:
- “I know we’re not supposed to use violence against police officers.”
- “But what about ISIS?”
This is a classic whataboutism because it ignores the fact that there are important differences between ISIS and police officers by changing the subject entirely. The person making this statement wants us to talk about terrorism rather than police brutality so they can ignore the issue at hand and make themselves feel better about something terrible happening anywhere else in the world instead of here where I live!
Conclusion
As you can see, whataboutism is an argument in which a moral principle is invoked to defend an action that is otherwise indefensible. It can seem persuasive, but only because it is a false analogy. The goal of whataboutism is to convince your audience that the actions of others are not as bad as the actions of your opponent. It usually takes the form of an ad hominem attack and has a smug tone wrapped in moral indignation. On its own, whataboutism doesn’t make any sense; however, it often functions as a standard defence against charges of bigotry or racism by people who are actually guilty of those things!
