TacticsEvasion
Whataboutism
Also called Whataboutery · Tu quoque · Two wrongs make a right
Answering a criticism by pointing to someone else's wrongdoing, so the original charge never gets answered.
Definition
Whataboutism responds to a criticism by raising a different wrongdoing, usually by the critic or their side, instead of answering the criticism itself.
It’s a close cousin of the tu quoque (“you too”) form of ad hominem, scaled up from a person to a group, a party, or a country. The counter-charge might be true. The problem is that it’s being used to change the subject.
How it works
The tactic moves the conversation in two ways at once. First, it changes the topic: the discussion is now about the critic’s failings, not the original issue. Second, it suggests that because the critic is a hypocrite, the criticism doesn’t count. Neither move answers the charge, but together they can make the original question feel settled.
In 2008 The Economist described the pattern as a habit of Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. When Western critics raised Soviet abuses, the stock reply pointed to problems in the West, such as racial segregation in the American South. The tactic is much older than the name, and every side of politics uses it.
How to spot it
“What about…?” comes immediately after a criticism.
“Where was your outrage when…?”
The reply contains no response to the original charge, only a new one.
The conversation ends up about the critic’s side, and the first issue is dropped.
The counter-example happened at a different time, place, or scale, and is used only to deflect.
Examples
01The Cold War reply
When Western officials criticized Soviet human-rights abuses, Soviet spokespeople often answered by pointing to racism and poverty in the United States.
What went wrong
American segregation was real and deserved criticism. But it didn’t answer the charge about Soviet prisons and censorship. Both could be true, and both could be wrong.
02The party scandal
A politician is caught in an ethics scandal. Their supporters’ main reply is that a politician from the other party did something similar last year.
What went wrong
The other scandal may well have been worse, and that’s worth discussing on its own. But it doesn’t tell you whether this politician did something wrong. Every party uses this reply when it’s their turn, which is a good sign it isn’t an answer.
03The company and its competitors
A company accused of polluting a river responds that its competitors pollute more.
What went wrong
The comparison may be accurate, and it might matter for how regulators set priorities. But it leaves the actual question, whether this company is polluting this river, unanswered.
Why it works
Hypocrisy feels relevant, because we expect people to apply their standards consistently. Pointing to the other side’s failings also rallies your own side and puts the critic on defense. And it resets the conversation: by the time the counter-charge has been argued over, the original issue has often been forgotten.
How to counter it
1Grant it, then come back
Agree that the other wrongdoing may be real, and return to the original question. Defending your own side is the trap.
Fair enough, that was wrong too. Now, back to this one: was it wrong?
2Offer to take it up separately
Show you’re not avoiding the counter-charge, just declining to let it replace the original topic.
Happy to talk about that next. But first, what’s your answer on this?
3Ask for a shared standard
Turn the comparison into agreement: if both are wrong, say so.
So we agree it’s wrong when anyone does it? Then we agree about this case too.
When it's fair play
Raising a comparison is fair when consistency itself is the question. If a critic applies a rule to one side and not the other, pointing that out is a legitimate challenge to the critic’s fairness, though it still doesn’t settle the original charge. Comparisons can also supply context and proportion: whether a problem is unusual or common can matter for how to respond to it.
The test is whether the original question still gets an answer. A comparison that comes alongside an answer is context. A comparison that comes instead of one is whataboutism.
Sources & further reading
- “Whataboutism,” The Economist, January 31, 2008.
- Douglas Walton, Ad Hominem Arguments (University of Alabama Press, 1998). Covers the tu quoque form in depth.
- Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse, Why We Argue (And How We Should) (Routledge, 2014).
End of entry · Back to top