# Political Whataboutery **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 4, 2022, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934 "2022-09-04T15:01:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/1 "2022-09-04T15:01:01Z")
I’m fairly new to the term ”whataboutery”, used very occasionally at the Dope since 2012. A weak defence to arguments, the idea is to suggest something is unimportant because your opponent is a hypocrite. Defences to classified documents being kept at home include the improbable idea they were for a future museum and the trolling suggestion the search was for Hilary Clinton’s emails. This latter subject is the perhaps the best example of whataboutery. Though this seems to be all the political rage, this must be an old concept. Where does the word come from? When did it become so prominent in politics (or was it always)? Is it becoming much more used, as seems to be the case? ---
**Author:** ![wjChia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wjChia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wjChia)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/2 "2022-09-04T15:11:47Z")
isn’t the word whataboutism? > **[Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)** > > Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. > The communication intent here is often to distract f... ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/3 "2022-09-04T15:44:36Z")
As the wiki article notes, “whataboutism” is a kind of “tu quoque” argument (coming from the Latin for “you too”). It’s a rhetorical device to discredit an opponent’s accusation of X by claiming that your opponent is also involved in X (without addressing the actual substance of whether X is true). “Tu quoque” has been documented in the English language for at least 400 years, but my guess is that some variation of the phrase “No, you are!” goes back to the beginning of human evolution. ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/4 "2022-09-04T16:27:28Z")
I’d be surprised if we found out the Sumerians didn’t use it… ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/5 "2022-09-04T16:40:05Z")
The thing is, whataboutism isn’t always tu quoque. It can instead be a red herring. The ultimate point is just to redirect the conversation to be about a different topic than the current one. Sure, accusing the other person of being a hypocrite is one way to do that, but not the only one. The OP mentions the Trump documents. Sure, one example of whataboutism is “what about Hillary’s emails?” But another would be “what about trans children?” ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/6 "2022-09-04T17:17:38Z")
Well, it’s a variant. But I’d argue that even using it to deflect is a kind of “tu quoque” – “you’re saying X is important, but you’re ignoring what’s _really_ important . . .” ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/7 "2022-09-04T17:40:15Z")
Maybe. Whataboutism might be an older or more established word than whataboutery, but the latter is being used more and more often. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/8 "2022-09-04T18:20:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The OP mentions the Trump documents. Sure, one example of whataboutism is “what about Hillary’s emails?” But another would be “what about trans children?” Your first example could be considered a legitimate question. It compares two (purportedly) similar acts by Trump and Clinton, in an attempt to ascertain whether a double standard is being applied. ‘Whataboutism’ is bringing up a different type of transgression by your opponent, with no interest in examining the issue at hand. As you note, it’s about derailing or redirecting the conversation. Another tactic I’ve seen people use is to accuse a person who asks a legitimate question of whataboutism. Same goal, derailing the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/9 "2022-09-04T20:18:33Z")
> [@Dr\_Paprika](#): > > Maybe. Whataboutism might be an older or more established word than whataboutery, but the latter is being used more and more often. What do you base that on? Google trends would say nu-huh! > **[Google Trends](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore/TIMESERIES/1662322200?tz=240&date=today%2B5-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F0jw_49z,whataboutery&sni=3)** > > See interest over time on Google Trends for Whataboutism, whataboutery - United States, Past 5 years. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/10 "2022-09-04T20:32:11Z")
I get a 400 error. [Let’s try this](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=whataboutism,whataboutery). In plain hits whataboutism beats whataboutery 810,000 to 119,000. Frankly, I’ve never seen whataboutery in use, though obviously some people use it. Both terms are at least 20 years old, and whataboutism is used on the Dope regularly, even as a thread topic. > [@What about "whataboutism"?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-whataboutism/822465): > > I’d been meaning to post this for a while, but only recently got around to it. Lately (as in, for the past several years…I don’t recall hearing the term more than, say, five years ago) there has been, if not a coining of, at least an increase in visibility of the term “whataboutism”. Unless I’m sorely mistaken, its usage is to dismiss charges that the same thing a certain party is accused of doing were done by someone else without objection in the past. But…didn’t that sort of argument used to … The poor baby has been kicked to death. Can’t we stick with the straightforward “hypocrisy” since that covers far more of what the right does? ---
**Author:** ![SharltoCopley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sharltocopley/32/12309_2.png) [@SharltoCopley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SharltoCopley)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/11 "2022-09-04T20:39:35Z")
Whatabouery was heavily used at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a la What about Iraq, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2022, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/12 "2022-09-04T20:45:21Z")
Don’t know about the link. I’m using what I have personally seen. Anecdotal evidence is not statistical evidence and not very good. So, I must answer your nuh-huh with a decisive purr-haps. ---
**Author:** ![solost](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/solost/32/11776_2.png) [@solost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solost)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2022, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/13 "2022-09-07T18:13:09Z")
One thing I’ve never understood about whataboutism is that it seems to implicate as wrong the thing one is defending by drawing a parallel to another thing that one is against. For example: **Person 1:** Don’t you think that trump’s taking and refusing to return classified documents rises to the level of a crime? **Person 2:** But-but-but what about Hillary’s emails? **Person 1:** OK, if I acknowledge that Hillary’s actions sending emails on an unsecured server were wrong, do you acknowledge that trump’s actions keeping classified files that he shouldn’t have had are just as wrong, if not much worse? Of course, in reality Person 2 would just argue that what Hillary did is somehow much worse than what trump did, but as a rhetorical argument it seems like it puts the user in a corner that’s difficult to argue out of. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2022, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/14 "2022-09-07T19:12:37Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Frankly, I’ve never seen whataboutery in use, though obviously some people use it. Same here. It’s a new term to me. Whataboutism is a term I’ve been very familiar with for a long time. Generally, calling something an “ism” is more pejorative and gives it a negative connotation. The “-ery” suffix is more neutral. I suspect that’s why the former is more popular, because the concept is used most often as an accusation, and so it’s far more effective to use a more negatively-loaded word. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2022, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/15 "2022-09-08T06:41:39Z")
> [@solost](#): > > as a rhetorical argument it seems like it puts the user in a corner that’s difficult to argue out of. It isn’t an argument. Once Person 1 acknowledges “Hillary’s emails” all Person 2 is going to talk about is that in all it’s possible permutations. That’s the point. While, technically, Whataboutism is a _Tu Quoque_ in conversation it’s simply a way to change the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2022, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-whataboutery/970934/16 "2022-09-08T07:41:15Z")
> [@solost](#): > > One thing I’ve never understood about whataboutism is that it seems to implicate as wrong the thing one is defending by drawing a parallel to another thing that one is against. That’s exactly why it’s a logical fallacy and people call it out when they recognize it. > [@solost](#): > > Of course, in reality Person 2 would just argue that what Hillary did is somehow much worse than what trump did, but as a rhetorical argument it seems like it puts the user in a corner that’s difficult to argue out of. It absolutely does, that’s why whataboutism is a fallacy and a terrible rhetorical tool. And that’s why it is useful to point that that it is occurring. The same way that you can defeat a straw man attempt in an argument simply by pointing out that it’s a straw man, and why it’s a straw man. (As simple as, “You are arguing against something that I never said, nobody has brought it up except you, and nobody is advocating for it, so it’s pointless to mention it.”)