Whataboutism

How it works

You raise a problem. Instead of an answer, you get a mirror: “Oh, and what about what YOUR people did?” The reply does not say the problem is false. It does not say it is fine. It simply drags a different problem into the room and hopes nobody notices the first one walked out.

That is the whole trick. Whataboutism works because the counter-accusation is often true. Yes, the other side also did something bad once. That feels like a fair point, so your brain files the exchange as “both sides, whatever” and moves on. The original question never gets an answer, which was the goal.

It has a long history as a tool of state propaganda. Soviet spokespeople famously met any criticism of the USSR with “And you are lynching Black people”; the phrase became a running joke, but the technique never went away. EUvsDisinfo, the EU’s disinformation database, has catalogued thousands of pro-Kremlin items that answer questions about the war in Ukraine with “what about Iraq?”, “what about Libya?”, or “what about Yugoslavia?”. The questions about Iraq may well be worth asking. They just are not an answer.

Example

@real_talk_88, 3h So the ministry lost 40 million on a contract with no bidding process?

@patriot_pulse, 2h Funny how you never post about the last government’s stadium deals. Selective outrage much?

Notice what did not happen: nobody said the 40 million is fine, or fake. The conversation now has a new topic, a new villain, and the original question is quietly dead.

Why it works on you

• It looks like fairness. “Both sides” sounds balanced. But balance means judging each case on its merits, not refusing to judge any case at all.
• It triggers team loyalty. When your side is accused, you feel defensive, so you reach for the other side’s sins as a shield. See us vs. them.
• It is exhausting. After a few rounds, people give up and conclude “everyone lies”. That cynicism is often the actual goal (see nothing is true, everyone lies).

What to do

When someone does it to you: acknowledge and park it. “Could be. Happy to talk about that separately. Right now I asked about this.” Repeat calmly. You do not have to win the second argument to keep the first one alive.

When you catch yourself doing it: ask whether you are answering or deflecting. If the honest answer is “I’m changing the subject because I don’t like where this is going”, say so. Or better, answer.

In a comment section: do not call people liars. Link the technique. “This is whataboutism, here’s how it works” moves readers more than any insult.

Don’t confuse it with

• Pointing out hypocrisy is legitimate when the hypocrisy is the topic (“you voted against this rule, then used it yourself”). It becomes whataboutism when it is used to avoid a question that stands on its own.
• Asking for consistency (“would you apply the same standard here?”) is fine if you then also answer the original point.