Skip to content
Don't Feed the TrollsGet help

Whataboutism

Also written: tu quoque

Answering a criticism by pointing at someone else's alleged wrongdoing instead of addressing the criticism made.

Escalation:
Sophisticated / covert
Type:
Rhetorical

Where the term comes from

Lexicographic: Merriam-Webster carries an entry. The term is most associated with political argument, where the redirection is easiest to see.

Whose definition this is

The one-line summary above is ours. The definition it compresses comes from a named source, quoted in full and linked below — where the two differ, the source is what counts. Everything else on this page that states a fact is sourced.

Whataboutism is the most socially acceptable way to not answer a question. [1]

The move works because it does not look like an evasion. It looks like context, or like fairness, or like a reasonable objection to double standards — all of which are real things that sometimes matter. What makes it a tactic rather than an argument is the substitution: the original point is never returned to.

Why it works

A criticism creates a small obligation to respond. Whataboutism discharges that obligation by transferring it. You are now the one who owes an answer, about a different subject, and the original claim is left standing unexamined behind you.

It is also extremely hard to refuse without appearing evasive yourself. "That's not what we were discussing" is true, and it sounds exactly like what someone would say if they had no answer.

Recognising it

  • The reply concerns a different actor, a different time, or a different event
  • The comparison is offered instead of an answer, not alongside one
  • Declining to follow the diversion is characterised as dodging
  • Following it produces another diversion, indefinitely

The honest difficulty

This is the term most easily used as a shield, and it is worth being blunt about that.

Consistency is a real standard. If a rule is applied to one person and not another, saying so is not a diversion — it is the substance. Comparisons are how anyone judges whether a principle is being held or merely deployed, and a great deal of legitimate criticism takes exactly the form of "you did not say this when it was your side". Answering that with the word whataboutism is a way of retiring the comparison without engaging it, and it works because the label sounds like a diagnosis rather than a refusal.

The distinction is not in the shape of the sentence. It is in what happens next. A person making a consistency argument will say what follows from it: that the rule should be applied to both, or that it should be dropped. A person deflecting will not, because the comparison was never the point — the point was that you stop asking. If you cannot tell which you are looking at, the question that usually resolves it is simply "and what should follow from that?" It is not a rhetorical trap; someone with a real argument has an answer ready.

The second difficulty is that both readings can be true at once. Someone can raise a genuine double standard and be doing it to avoid answering. Naming the tactic does not settle whether the comparison was fair, and treating it as though it does is how the word became an all-purpose dismissal.

What to do

The workable response is to concede the comparison cheaply and return to the point in the same breath: "Possibly — I don't know enough about that. On the thing I raised, though…" Refusing to engage at all reads as evasion; engaging fully means you have changed the subject on their terms.

If the diversion recurs after that, you are no longer in a disagreement about the subject, and the useful question becomes whether to continue at all.

Not the same as

A relevant comparison
Comparisons are often legitimate and necessary — consistency is a real standard. The tell is whether the comparison is offered in addition to an answer or instead of one.
Pointing out hypocrisy
Hypocrisy can be worth naming. It becomes whataboutism when the hypocrisy of the accuser is treated as settling the accusation, which it never does.

Responding at this level

Recognition matters more than response. The tell is the pattern across a conversation, never any single message, and the honest advice is to judge the exchange rather than the sentence.

  • Keeping a record →

    Writing down what happened, when it happened and who saw it — a practice borrowed from guidance about stalking and harassment, not tested for the ordinary tactics documented elsewhere on this site.

  • Don't feed the trolls →

    Declining to reply, so that provocation produces no reaction and no audience. The most repeated advice on the internet, and among the least examined.

Others at this level

  • Sealioning — Relentless, superficially polite demands for evidence that exhaust the target while preserving the appearance of good faith.
  • Concern trolling — Opposing something while posing as a worried supporter of it, so the objection arrives pre-shielded from challenge.
  • Gish gallop — Burying an opponent under more claims than can be answered in the time available, so unanswered reads as unanswerable.
  • Motte-and-bailey — Advancing a strong contentious claim, then retreating to a modest defensible one when challenged, then returning.
  • Conversational gaslighting — Denying what was plainly said or done until the other person doubts their own recollection.
  • DARVO — Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender — a documented response pattern that recasts the accused as the wronged party.

Sources

Last checked . Each quote below is verified against an archived copy of its source every time the site is built.

  1. [1] Whataboutism (definition), Merriam-Webster [archived]
    “the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse”