Whataboutism accusations impute ill-intent: to deflect attention from an uncomfortable truth. In other words, the accusation of whataboutism is a form of mindreading. But how do we know it’s the truth of another’s intent, or the whole truth?
We don’t. If one wants to return to an issue in a conversation, one can simply say, “I’d like to return to subject xyz…” and then proceed to restate and elaborate the original subject. There’s no need to label the other person’s imputed intentions. And if that person keeps changing the subject, mention that and ask them why.
And if deflection is one of the motives for reframing, contextualizing, or changing a subject, is that always a bad thing? Obviously not. But how do we know when it’s bad and when it’s not?
We can’t know for sure, but that shouldn’t stop us from resuming an earlier topic that we think deserves more attention. And if the other person’s responses to our concerns seem unproductive or purely deflective, we can share that impression with them and see what they think. It’s really as simple as that.
Closing Questions:
What do accusations of whataboutism accomplish in political discourse? How can we achieve similar ends without projecting an attitude of moral superiority or presuming to see through another’s intentions? And if we see no problem with the attitude and presumptions, why not?