When Invoking “Whataboutism” Becomes Disingenuous

What is Whataboutism?

Whataboutism is a technique used in making arguments that’s often used to deflect. It’s real, and if you don’t recognize it, it can be effectively used against you. You can easily lose an argument. Or, if you’re making a request of someone, you may never get what you want or need.

Wikipedia defines it this way: “Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.” It’s an ad hominem argument that can be considered a personal attack.

When someone says, “That’s the pot calling the kettle black” — often that’s whataboutism, though not always.

Here’s an example from the Dictionary.com blog:

“Hey, weren’t you supposed to do the dishes last night?” you ask your roommate as you stare at a sink full of crusty dishes. Instead of acknowledging it, apologizing, and jumping to clean up, your roommate opens a fresh can of whataboutism: “But what about that time last week when you were supposed to take out the garbage and you didn’t?” Wait, what? Can’t they just do the dishes?!

The people who employ “Whataboutism,” when accused of doing something wrong, are in essence saying, “Well, what about what you did?” rather than acknowledging their own wrong.

It’s actually a pretty childish argument — kids use it all the time. Maybe you’ve done it yourself. (Mom: “You can’t steal your sister’s cookie! Give it back.” Kid: “She won’t let me watch my TV show!”)

Sadly, it happens all the time in politics.

When Calling Out Hypocrisy Is NOT Whataboutism

The term “whataboutism” has been heard a lot in the media of late, mainly in political discussions. Yet not every time someone calls out hypocrisy is a case of whataboutism.

It’s only whataboutism when someone refuses to defend their own claims by any means other than pointing to a different situation. It’s not whataboutism if the person is making other arguments that validly point out someone else’s hypocrisy.

For example, it’s not whataboutism when you’re making an argument that calls for consistency, if you’re not using it to deflect. Let’s say you agree with what is being said, and you say so. It’s not whataboutism when you say, “You’re right, what you’re saying is wrong is actually wrong. But let’s be consistent. If you’re going to call this out for what it is, make sure you’re calling out the same thing in all circumstances.”

In other words, asking for consistency in upholding standards is not whataboutism. Richard Nordquist of ThoughtCo puts it this way, “It was relevant to attack Jimmy Swaggart after he was found with a prostitute yet purported to be an advisor and leader on moral issues.”

Let’s examine discussions of the January 6 Capitol riot. I was once accused of whataboutism when I pointed out that the more vitriolic media critics of that riot haven’t been consistent in their arguments against all rioting, since they didn’t call out the riots that occurred in multiple cities throughout the spring, summer, and fall of 2020. But I wasn’t trying to defend the Capitol rioters; I was actually condemning their actions. I wasn’t trying to deflect an argument — I actually agreed that what was happening was wrong.

I was calling out a hypocritical narrative as I saw it. If you’re going to condemn rioting, condemn it all. Don’t excuse it in some circumstances and not in others. The 2020 riots also resulted in deaths, injuries, and property destruction, just as did the one that occurred on January 6, 2021. And the physical harm from the 2020 riots was far more extensive. All of them were wrong.

In other words, don’t maximize the evils of the rioters you don’t agree with and minimize the actions of the rioters you do agree with. Don’t call the police racists and call for them to be defunded and then praise them as heroes a few months later for defending you when you needed their help.

Be careful when you invoke whataboutism with someone. It’s not a valid argument if you truly have been hypocritical and if the person you’re accusing is not actually deflecting but instead is calling out your hypocrisy with an effective argument of their own.

In fact, accusations of whataboutism can also be used as a deflection that attempts to shut down an opponent’s effective argument. If you do that, you truly are the pot calling the kettle black.

References:

Dictionary.com (n.d.). What’s the Problem with Whataboutism? https://www.dictionary.com/e/whataboutisms/

Hacker News. (n.d.). Can you explain what’s wrong with whataboutism? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20337343

Nordquist, R. (2018, October 27). Definition and Examples of an Ad Hominem Fallacy: The Logical Fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem. https://www.thoughtco.com/ad-hominem-fallacy-1689062

Nordquist, R. (2019, October 31). What is Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) in Rhetoric? An ad hominem argument in which the accused becomes the accuser. https://www.thoughtco.com/tu-quoque-logical-fallacy-1692568#:~:text=Tu%20quoque%20is%20a%20type,%22a%20tu%20quoque%20argument.%22

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Whataboutism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#:~:text=Whataboutism%2C%20also%20known%20as%20whataboutery,with%20Soviet%20and%20Russian%20propaganda.