Skip to main content
1-2 min read
Debate Tactics and EvasionsAKA: Tu quoque variant

The Whataboutism Fallacy

Deflects criticism by pointing to another issue or wrongdoing instead of addressing the original point.

Quick summary
  • Definition: Deflects criticism by pointing to another issue or wrongdoing instead of addressing the original point.
  • Impact: Whataboutism distorts reasoning by It doesn’t refute the original claim; it distracts with a different issue.
  • Identify: Look for patterns like Receive a criticism or claim.

What is the Whataboutism fallacy?

Related to appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism shifts focus to someone else’s faults. It avoids engaging with the criticism or claim at hand.

People lean on this pattern because It’s an effective deflection and can rally supporters by shifting blame.

The Pattern
  • 1Receive a criticism or claim.
  • 2Respond by citing another problem or opponent’s wrongdoing.
  • 3Claim the original issue is thereby invalid or unimportant.

Why the Whataboutism fallacy matters

This fallacy distorts reasoning by It doesn’t refute the original claim; it distracts with a different issue.. It often shows up in contexts like Politics, Online debates, Accountability discussions, where quick takes and ambiguity can hide weak arguments.

Examples of Whataboutism in Everyday Life

Everyday Scenario
"Team feedback."
A:We missed our deadline.
B:What about the design team missing theirs last month?
Serious Context

A government confronted about rights violations deflects by highlighting other countries’ abuses instead of addressing the allegations.

Why it is fallacious

It doesn’t refute the original claim; it distracts with a different issue.

Why people use it

It’s an effective deflection and can rally supporters by shifting blame.

How to Counter It

Recognition

  • Criticism answered with “what about…” and a different issue.
  • No engagement with the substance of the original point.
  • Appeal to comparative wrongdoing as a shield.

Response

  • Acknowledge the deflection and return to the original issue.
  • Address the new issue separately if relevant, but not as a substitute.
  • Clarify that multiple wrongs can be considered without canceling each other out.
Common phrases that signal this fallacy
  • “Whataboutism” style claim: Deflects criticism by pointing to another issue or wrongdoing instead of addressing the original point.
  • Watch for phrasing that skips evidence, e.g. "Deflects criticism by pointing to another issue or wrongdoing instead of addressing the original point"
  • Pattern hint: Receive a criticism or claim.
Better reasoning / Repair the argument

Acknowledge the deflection and return to the original issue.

Often confused with

Whataboutism is often mistaken for Appeal to Hypocrisy, but the patterns differ. Compare the steps above to see why this fallacy misleads in its own way.

Variants

Close variations that are easy to confuse with Whataboutism.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Whataboutism always invalid?

Whataboutism signals a weak reasoning pattern. Even if the conclusion is true, the path to it is unreliable and should be rebuilt with sound support.

How does Whataboutism differ from Appeal to Hypocrisy?

Whataboutism follows the pattern listed here, while Appeal to Hypocrisy fails in a different way. Looking at the pattern helps choose the right diagnosis.

Where does Whataboutism commonly appear?

You will find it in everyday debates, opinion columns, marketing claims, and quick social posts—anywhere speed or emotion encourages shortcuts.

Can Whataboutism ever be reasonable?

It can feel persuasive, but it remains logically weak. A careful version should replace the fallacious step with evidence or valid structure.

Further reading