Argument Detective A Field Guide to 15 Logical Fallacies
#12 of 15 Distort or Dodge

Whataboutism

Also called: what about, tu quoque, you too, deflection, two wrongs

Whataboutism answers criticism by pointing to another person's wrongdoing instead of addressing the original issue.

A careful definition

Whataboutism is a form of deflection and often overlaps with "tu quoque," meaning "you too," and with the red herring. The comparison may reveal hypocrisy or inconsistent standards, but that does not erase the original criticism. A fair response can address the first issue and then examine whether the same standard applies elsewhere.

Family — Distort or Dodge: Did the response address the real claim?

The move

  1. Person A criticizes action X.
  2. Person B points to action Y by A or someone else.
  3. Person B treats Y as a reason not to answer X.

Why it can feel convincing

  • It shifts pressure back onto the critic.
  • It creates a feeling of unfairness.
  • It turns one question into a contest over who behaved worse.

Clear examples, diagnosed

Clear example

The messy lab station

"Why did you leave your lab station messy?" Response: "What about the group beside us? They left paper on the floor."

What went wrong:

  • The question is about this group's responsibility.
  • The response points to another group's mess.
  • Another group's behavior does not answer the first group's responsibility.
Repaired: "We left our station messy and will clean it. We should also check that every group is held to the same standard."

Clear example

Late to rehearsal

"Why were you late to rehearsal?" Response: "You were late last Tuesday."

What went wrong:

  • The current question is about today's lateness.
  • The response raises the critic's past lateness.
  • The other lateness may matter to fairness, but the current question stands.
Repaired: "I was late today, and I am sorry. If lateness is a problem, let us apply the same rule to everyone, including me."

Where the boundary is

Not a fallacy

Answer first, then check consistency

"I was late, and that was my responsibility. We should also apply the same attendance rule to everyone, including leaders."

This addresses the original criticism before raising a fair consistency point. Asking for equal standards after answering is not the fallacy.

Borderline case

Selective enforcement

A person points to a comparison because they suspect the rule is being enforced only against them.

Questions to ask:

  • Is the comparison being used to test whether the standard is applied fairly?
  • Or is it being used to avoid answering the original issue?
  • Was the original criticism ever acknowledged?

Not automatically fallacious when

  • The original issue is acknowledged and answered.
  • The comparison is relevant to consistent rules or equal treatment.
  • The speaker does not treat another wrong as an excuse for the first.

Diagnostic questions

  • What criticism was made first?
  • Did the response acknowledge it?
  • What second wrongdoing was introduced?
  • Does the second issue excuse, explain, or merely distract from the first?

Spot it. Prove it. Repair it.

The argument

"Why did your team use an uncited image?" Response: "Other teams used images too."

Spot Notice the possible problem

This looks like whataboutism.

Prove Point to the exact failure

  • The question is about your team's uncited image.
  • The response points to other teams.
  • Other teams' images do not fix your team's missing citation.

Repair Rebuild it fairly

Repaired: "We used an uncited image and will add the citation. We can also ask the teacher to apply the citation rule to every team."

Use this for your project

Essential question

How does "but what about them?" avoid answering the original question?

Where to hunt for examples

  • Public interviews where a question is deflected, in neutral form.
  • Arguments in fiction that trade accusations.
  • Advertising that answers a criticism by attacking a rival.
  • Debates that turn into "who is worse" contests.

Questions to research

  • What was the first criticism?
  • Was it acknowledged before the comparison?
  • What second issue was raised?
  • Does the second issue answer or dodge the first?

Project products to try

  • A conversation flowchart showing "Answer first" versus "Point elsewhere."
  • A rewritten exchange that answers, then checks consistency.
  • A comparison of a fair consistency point and a pure deflection.
  • A short skit demonstrating the difference.
Red Herring

Whataboutism is a specific red herring that deflects toward another person's wrongdoing.

Ad Hominem

Both can shift focus to a person, but whataboutism specifically raises a counter-accusation.

Sources and attribution

Content status: Original to this project. This page's explanations, examples, non-example, borderline case, and repair activity were written for Argument Detective.

Sources and further reading