A rhetorical distraction manoeuvre (red herring) that aims to divert attention away from the problem being criticised by pointing to a different problem. In particular, this has the effect (and often even the purpose) of ensuring that neither problem is resolved.
For example:
A: At home, we only eat organically grown vegetables.
B: And how does that help starving children in Africa?
It would certainly be an interesting topic of discussion to question whether organically grown vegetables really are beneficial to health or positive moral impact, but clearly, the reference to starving children does not contribute to this discussion, but rather is an attempt to distract from the topic.
The term “Whataboutism” is a portmanteau, composed of the English expression “what about…?” and the suffix -ism, which refers to a system of thought or a conceptual narrative.
The expression originated during the Cold War time to describe a specific form of rejection of Western criticism as it was commonly practiced by representatives of the Soviet Union, who responded to any arbitrary critical remarks by pointing out grievances in the Western world. The following (somewhat oversimplified) example paraphrases this:
A: In the Soviet Union, dissidents are sent to prison camps.
B: In the USA, on the other hand, they are lynching people for being black!
As despicable as lynchings in the United States (and elsewhere!) certainly are, they have no relevance to the suppression of differing opinions under totalitarian regimes, nor does invoking them help to improve the situation of either group. It seems likely that the primary objective here is to stifle discussion.
By the way, this type of response is specifically a rhetorical tu quoque attack, a variation of the ad hominem.
As with all red herring tactics, the use of whataboutism to distract from the actual topic is considered an unfair discussion tactic. However, there are situations where it may be legitimate to connect the subject of discussion to another topic.
There is no reason not to bring up a relevant counterexample in a discussion that refutes or relativises an opponent’s statement.
An example from literature:
A: All of Gaul is occupied by Rome.
B: And what about the little village in Aremorica, whose inhabitants do not cease to resist the invaders?
Pointing out that there is a restriction, as a result of which the general statement (‘all of Gaul’) cannot be upheld, is entirely justified and therefore cannot be considered a diversionary tactic.
Such a counterexample can also be useful for refuting claims. in particular, universal statements in particular can be refuted by counterexamples.
A: All Scots are stingy. B: What about Andrew Carnegie? He was Scottish and known as being very generous.
Here, too, the introduction of alternate examples does not serve to distract from the actual topic, but is appropriate and therefore permissible.
If the topic of a discussion changes or the discussion drifts into other areas, a form of whataboutism can be used to bring the discussion back to the actual topic.
“What about our original topic?”
Here, it does not matter whether the distraction was intentional or unintentional: what is important is that returning to the actual topic contributes to a structured discussion and does not serve to prevent it.
If one is indeed prepared to acknowledge one’s own problems and make efforts to eliminate them, it is legitimate to point out the problems of the other side in order to compel them to act to advocate for improvement as well.
To return to the above example from Cold War times. At the time of Perestroika, it may have played out as follows:
A: In the Soviet Union, dissidents are sent to prison camps.
B: That did indeed happen, but all political prisoners have now been released – while we’re on the subject: what measures have been taken in the USA to improve the legal and social status of people of colour?
The prerequisite for this is, of course, that one’s own side has indeed made meaningful efforts to improve the situation.
For examples of justified use of whataboutism, see also the article on tu quoque attacks, which specifically concerns personal attacks.
Particularly on social media, the term “whataboutism” is frequently used in a very broad sense, whereby the term is employed as some kind of “knock-down argument” against arbitrary opposing views. In this form, the use of the term itself is a rhetorical fallacy, as it is aimed at preventing an objective discussion on the topic.
However, in many situations, the distinction is not easy to make. In short (and probably also greatly simplified), the main question is:
Is this an attempt to divert attention from the actual topic of discussion?
The distinction can perhaps best be explained using the following examples (which, unfortunately, are frequently observed in the current political debate):
An unfortunately common attempt to divert attention from the wrongdoings of one’s own political affiliation (especially the more extreme varieties) is to immediately point out the wrongdoings of the other extreme whenever accusations are made.
A: The number of violent acts committed by right-wing extremists rose again last year. We must take more decisive action against this type of political violence!
B: Leftists also commit political crimes!
The attempt here is to relativise or trivialise the violent acts of right-wing extremists and steer the discussion in a different direction. This can therefore indeed be described as “whataboutism”.
As usual, the same can be observed in the other direction – that is, when sympathisers of left-wing perpetrators of violence attempt to downplay their actions by referring to right-wing extremist violence (horseshoe theory).
All forms of political violence are incompatible with democratic values, regardless of their political orientation. Which creed of extremism poses the greatest threat at a given time should be determined by consulting the relevant crime statistics.
But not every comparison between the left and the right is whataboutism. If the discussion is about a broader topic and a counterargument is made within that context, it can certainly be an objective argument. For example, in the following example:
A: For political discourse in a democracy, it is important to talk to each other and work together to find the best solution.
B: You can't talk to right-wingers, they're not interested in discussion!
A: I have met people on both sides – left and right – who are open and willing to discuss, and those who refuse. The inability to discuss objectively is not unique to the right wing.
B:What a bunch of whataboutism!
This is where B is mistaken, because the comparison between left and right takes place within the topic and does not attempt to distract from it.
If it is indeed a genuine case of ‘whataboutism’ (i.e. none of the above exceptions apply), it can be refuted relatively easily by referring to the following principle:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Depending on the situation, this should of course be phrased more appropriately, for example as follows:
You are of course right that B is also a major injustice that should be rectified. But the issue at hand here is A, and we should therefore talk about A and how it can be rectified. We can then also talk about B elsewhere.
The use of whataboutism is particularly widespread on social media. This is probably because short, pointed responses tend to attract more readers than complex, nuanced analyses. This is well illustrated in the following examples:
A: The Russian invasion of Ukraine was clearly a violation of international law!
B: And what about the Americans? Aren’t they constantly intervening all over the world?
This does not always have to be about big-picture global politics. Such discussions also take place on a smaller scale:
A: Electric scooters are being parked inconsiderately all the time and have become a real nuisance in the city. There is an urgent need for stricter regulations.
B: And what about cars? They are also parked around everywhere. These should actually be banned in the city!
Aside from the fact that cars are already heavily regulated – and owners have to expect to pay towing costs and high fines if they park them in a way that obstructs traffic – and also that A has not called for a ban, but only stricter regulation of the vehicles known as “e-scooters” (Strawman argument) – by referring to other vehicles, the discussion is not advanced, but rather this seems like an attempt to distracted from the actual issue at hand.
A surprisingly common (but clearly spurious) argument used by some to justify their own “creative” tax optimisation:
The super-rich pay virtually no taxes.
(and that’s why it is justifiable for me to evade taxes, too)
It is certainly one of the greatest injustices of our time that those who actually benefit most from a functioning and stable society and who also have the best opportunities to support it (through their taxes) at the same time find it all too easy to escape precisely this responsibility.
However, using this as a justification for one’s own misconduct does nothing to solve the problem and only makes it worse. This has aspects of a spurious argument, even if the main objective here is to convince oneself.