From RationalWiki

“ ” This tweet is to give notice that the argument "there are bigger problems than this!" will no longer be an acceptable diversion unless you are personally working to stop the inevitable Heat Death of the Universe. —Katie Mack[1]

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a red herring version of the classic tu quoque logical fallacy - sometimes implementing the balance fallacy as well - which is employed as a propaganda technique. It is used as a diversionary tactic to shift the focus off of an issue and avoid having to directly address it. This technique works by twisting criticism back onto the critic and in doing so revealing the original critic's hypocrisy. The usual syntax is "What about...?" followed by an issue on the opponent's side which is vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue. An old favorite of the Soviet Union,[2] the strategy was originally used in the form of "And at your place, they hang black people."[3] In recent years, whataboutism made a comeback in Vladimir Putin's Russia (since the Russians seemingly learned all the wrong lessons from the Cold War), and has also seen a rise in usage by Donald Trump and his support base.[4]

Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another. It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.

Examples [ edit ]

Criticisms [ edit ]

Several commentators have also noted that whataboutism accusations themselves can be used as method of deflection in debates.[18] Professor of journalism Christian Christensen argued that whataboutism accusations can enable double standards by dismissing criticisms of one's own behavior by focusing on those of others, while whataboutism itself can be useful in pointing out double standards and contradictions present in society.[19] Christensen cited the example Noam Chomsky being accused of whataboutism when Chomsky pointed out the double standards in Western leaders' condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo attacks by Islamic extremists, and their eulogies for Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, in spite of their shared views in Islamic fundamentalism and disregard for human rights. In such cases, state violence and human rights violations by "them", i.e. opponents of the Western world, are often framed as innate and systemic, while similar violence by "us" i.e. the Western world and its allies, are framed as necessary evils to defend the democratic system.

See also [ edit ]

Notes [ edit ]

↑ In reference to organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan ↑ This joke first began in the 1920s and carried on to the 1960s; after that, the US civil rights movement started to make the argument seem less and less relevant.