Technique 05 / 10

Whataboutism

Answering a criticism by pointing at someone else's sins.

Also filed under: tu quoque · the deflection
Field marks: “what about”“but the other side”“funny how nobody mentions”
Countermove: Ask: was the original question ever answered?

Section 01 · The mechanic

How it works

A question lands. Instead of an answer, back comes a different accusation, aimed somewhere else. “What about what your side did in 2019?” And here is the uncomfortable part: the counter-accusation is often fair. Hypocrisy is real, and pointing it out feels like accountability.

But watch what happened to the original question. It is still sitting there, unanswered, while the conversation sprints off toward the new target. That is the whole function of the move. It converts “is this true and is it bad” into “which side is worse,” a game that can be played forever and settles nothing.

Two things can be true at once, and this technique depends on you forgetting that. The other side’s failure can be real and the question on the table can still deserve an answer. The countermove is gentle but firm bookkeeping: fine, we can talk about that too, and now back to the question that was asked.

Section 02 · The drill

Try it in Crestfield

Crestfield is not a real town, which is the point. Nothing here is at stake, so you can watch the technique work without anything else tugging at you.

At the Crestfield council meeting, a resident asks: "The audit found the roads department paid twice for the same gravel shipment. What happened?" The roads commissioner replies: "Interesting question, coming from the same people who said nothing when the parks department went over budget three years running."

What happened to the gravel question?

Section 03 · In the wild

Sourced examples

Real statements, quoted verbatim, with the primary source and an archived copy linked under each one. The callouts describe what the statement does, never what the speaker intended. Examples are drawn from opposing camps on purpose; the technique belongs to no one.

presidential candidate (primary debate) · camp: left · Democratic primary debate in Miami, Florida, official transcript archived by the American Presidency Project

“And as I have said and as now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing (see callout 1) and many other people in the government (see callout 2).”

The company defense

The question on the floor was who gave permission for the email arrangement. The answer points at what previous officeholders did. Whatever the comparison's truth value (the fact-check record found the practices were not the same), the question about her own authorization is left standing, unanswered.
Widening the crowd

The second half swells the comparison from named predecessors to an unnumbered crowd. The more people placed inside an 'everyone does it' frame, the smaller any one person's conduct looks, and the original question shrinks along with it.

What the full record shows

The moderator's question was specific: 'Who specifically gave you permission to operate your email system as you did?' The record shows the comparison offered in reply was also inexact. PolitiFact rated 'my predecessors did the same thing' Mostly False: prior secretaries of state had used personal email accounts, but none had routed essentially all official email through a private server, and the State Department inspector general later concluded the arrangement had not been approved and would not have been had it been requested. The deflection can be judged separately from the underlying conduct: whatever one concludes about the emails, the question asked in Miami was answered with a comparison rather than an answer.

Context: source 1 · source 2

Democratic primary debate in Miami, Florida, official transcript archived by the American Presidency Project · March 9, 2016 · primary source · archived copy · flag a correction

elected official (sitting president) · camp: right · Television interview with Fox News, official transcript archived by the American Presidency Project

“You think our country's (see callout 1) so innocent (see callout 2)?”

The subject swap

The statement on the table was about Putin's record. One sentence later the subject under examination is the United States. The original charge is never engaged; the conversation's target has moved from the accused to the accuser's side of the table.
The purity bar

A specific accusation (a leader whose critics keep dying) is converted into a question about whether anyone is innocent. Since no country is, the question guarantees its own answer, and specific alleged conduct dissolves into general imperfection.

What the full record shows

The interviewer had just said of Putin: 'But he's a killer though. Putin's a killer.' The full reply ran the deflection twice ('There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers.') before landing on the quoted question, then referenced the Iraq war. What the record shows is that the question of Putin's record, including the documented deaths of Russian journalists and opposition figures, was never addressed in the exchange, and the equivalence drew immediate criticism from members of the President's own party. Whatever one concludes about American conduct abroad, it was offered in place of an answer, not as one.

Context: source 1 · source 2

Television interview with Fox News, official transcript archived by the American Presidency Project · February 3, 2017 · primary source · archived copy · flag a correction

Section 04 · Self-test

Call them yourself

Some of these use the technique and some play it straight. All of them are fictional. Read each one, make a call, and check your eye.

Exhibit A

A Crestfield school board member is asked about missing library funds:

“We're looking into it, and I'll have the full accounting next week. And I'd note the athletics fund had the same gap last year, so the review will cover both.”

Whataboutism or fair answer?

Exhibit B

A reporter asks the Crestfield mayor about her missed disclosure deadline:

“You know who else missed deadlines? The last mayor, four times, and your paper never wrote a word about it.”

Whataboutism or fair answer?

Exhibit C

Two residents argue about the water plant at a hearing. One says the plant failed its inspection. The other replies:

“And the towns you keep praising? Millbrook failed two inspections last year. Where's your outrage there?”

Whataboutism or fair answer?

Exhibit D

A candidate is asked about her missed council votes:

“I missed six votes this year, all during my surgery and recovery, and here's how each one would have gone. My opponent has missed nineteen, with no explanation offered. Voters can weigh both records.”

Whataboutism or fair answer?

Answered 0 of 4

Section 05 · The hard one

Now try it on your own side

Now the hard one. Crestfield's volunteer fire department, which you've backed at every fundraiser and pancake breakfast, gets cited in the county's audit for lapsed equipment inspections. At the firehouse meeting, the chief responds to the audit, and the room applauds.

“Funny how the county audits our little firehouse while the city department two towns over has blown its budget three years running and nobody says a word. Ask yourself why they're coming after volunteers.”

You support the department. What do you make of the chief's response?