Definition · Plain-language
Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy that deflects criticism by pointing to a different, unrelated wrongdoing — essentially arguing "but what about what you did?"
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
Soviet propaganda origins and modern political use
The tactic has a long history but the term "whataboutism" became widely used in analyses of Soviet Cold War propaganda (roughly 1960s–1980s). When Western governments criticised Soviet human rights abuses, Soviet spokespeople routinely responded with counter-charges: "But what about your treatment of Black Americans?" or "What about your colonial history?" The response was not a rebuttal — it did not address whether the original criticism was true — but a diversion. Modern political discourse makes heavy use of the same pattern across ideological lines: deflecting accountability by raising the misconduct of opponents rather than addressing the specific allegation.
Relationship to tu quoque and why it is fallacious
Whataboutism is a specific application of the tu quoque ("you too") fallacy, itself a sub-type of the ad hominem. Tu quoque deflects criticism by pointing out that the critic is guilty of the same or similar behaviour. The move is fallacious because whether A committed a wrong is logically independent of whether B committed a different wrong. Even if both parties are guilty of something, that does not diminish the validity of the original criticism — two wrongs do not make a right, and neither does pointing at the second wrong answer the charge about the first. The logical structure is: "You criticise me for X, but you did Y", with the implicit claim that Y excuses or refutes X, which it does not.
Distinguishing from legitimate double-standards criticism
Not every "what about" response is fallacious. If the original criticism relies on applying a standard selectively — if the critic genuinely argues that X is wrong because of principle P, but themselves violates P — then pointing this out challenges the consistency and sincerity of the criticism and may be relevant. This is a legitimate double-standards argument, not whataboutism: it is addressing the principle underlying the criticism rather than deflecting from the facts. The test is whether the counter-charge is logically connected to the original claim or merely a rhetorical distraction.
Key facts
At a glance
- Definition: deflecting criticism by pointing to a different, unrelated wrongdoing
- Type: variant of tu quoque fallacy, itself a sub-type of ad hominem
- Origin: widely used in Cold War Soviet propaganda (1960s–1980s)
- Core flaw: whether A did wrong is independent of whether B did something else
- "Two wrongs" principle: a second wrong neither excuses nor refutes the first
- Distinguishing: legitimate double-standards criticism addresses the underlying principle
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: Pointing out hypocrisy is always whataboutism.
Actually: Genuine hypocrisy arguments — where the critic invokes a principle they themselves violate — can be relevant to the consistency of the criticism. Whataboutism is the fallacious version: raising an unrelated offence to deflect rather than addressing the original charge.
Often heard: Whataboutism is only used by one political side.
Actually: The tactic appears across the political spectrum. It is defined by its logical structure — deflecting rather than addressing — not by the ideology of the person using it. Awareness of the pattern helps detect it regardless of who deploys it.
Often heard: If you respond with a counter-accusation, you have answered the original criticism.
Actually: A counter-accusation does not logically address the original charge. Even if the counter-accusation is true and serious, it must be addressed separately. Treating a counter-accusation as a refutation is the fallacious move that defines whataboutism.
Common questions
FAQ
What is the simplest definition of whataboutism?+
Whataboutism is deflecting a criticism by changing the subject to a different wrongdoing — typically one attributed to the critic. Instead of answering whether the original criticism is valid, it pivots to "but what about what you (or someone else) did?"
Is whataboutism the same as tu quoque?+
Whataboutism is a specific form of tu quoque, the fallacy of responding to a criticism by accusing the critic of similar behaviour. Tu quoque is the broader category; whataboutism typically involves pointing to a different wrongdoing (not necessarily the same act) and is especially associated with political and state-level deflection.
Why does whataboutism work rhetorically even though it is logically fallacious?+
It exploits our psychological tendency to apply standards symmetrically and to feel that fairness requires equal treatment of all parties. If an accusation appears motivated by political interest, the whataboutist response triggers a feeling that the criticism is not made in good faith — which makes people discount it, even though the logical validity of the original charge is unaffected.
Going deeper
