“The accusation of whataboutism often stings, because it implies a moral deficiency in the accused. It’s less about logic and evidence than the accuser’s moral convictions.” - Whataboutism, Part II: How is Whataboutism Different from Questioning or Refuting an Assertion?

The whys and what-fors of whataboutism accusations are the two sides of speech motivation: belief and purpose. Behind every utterance is a felt-truth - which may or may not be conscious or expressed - but the reason we actually say something is to achieve a goal. So what felt-truths are behind accusations of whataboutism, and what do the accusers hope to accomplish?

Let’s explore that question by looking at how ‘whataboutism’ was used in the following email exchanges from members of my debate club. Sections that refer to whataboutism are in bold. 

[Participant Codes: Dem – Democrat; Ind – Independent; Con – Conservative; Me: That would be me, an Independent. There were no self-identified Republicans, MAGA-supporters or progressives in these exchanges.] 

July 2025 Debate Club Email Exchanges re: Elon Musk

Dem1: [Initial email, with “Some People Deserve To Die” as subject line] Elon Musk Should Get The Death Penalty…Musk made a premeditated, unprovoked decision [bold in the original] to remove institutions and processes that were saving thousands of lives. Even killing one person in those circumstances could be justification for capital punishment. As his unarmed accomplice, Trump could also be subject to the death penalty.

Ind:  "Here are other examples of withholding aid that must be murder if indeed we take your moral imperative seriously." [What follows are  examples of prior US decisions that resulted in some people losing their lives, eg, reduced foreign aid spending during Biden years; the abrupt and poorly planned US withdrawal from Afghanistan]

Dem1:  "That's just whataboutism." 

Dem2: Frankly, I am not sure who I am more angry at: Elon Musk or the purveyors of whataboutism like on this forum, blaming Biden, progressives, "not our problem"ism. I ask you to try to feel an ounce of empathy for the children, teens, destitute adults, whose lives hang on just a few pennies from your pocket. 

Me: Would providing aid that results in deaths also be considered murder? I'm thinking of the numerous studies that have found links between foreign aid, corruption, and poor governance, keeping populations mired in poverty and leading to millions of excess deaths. A sampling, not meant to be conclusive: [what follows is 5 linked studies, plus an Economist article]…To me, the question is not to give aid or not, but under what conditions and looking at long-term as well as short-term effects. 

Dem1: I understood your point, Deborah, and don't necessarily disagree with it. It's just that it was tangential to the question, which is whether Elon Musk deserves to die. [my italics]

Ind: Are you willing to defend your position or not??  If you are, then you cannot invoke a special pleading fallacy every time you don't like the implication of your own rule, your own assertion, your own moral proclamation… I think Trump was incompetent in attacking USAID funding but let’s be crystal clear on one point… If we're building the gallows, I'm sure just as many Democrats will hang as Republicans. 

Me: Keep in mind that nobody here supports the manner in which USAID was cut… As for the millions who have died as a result of foreign aid, this is not hypothetical. The effect of foreign aid on corruption, poor governance, and economic development is well known. It's not just poorly conceived programs but the very fact of aid that creates dependence and dysfunction. [However], I am not calling for the elimination of foreign aid and of course public health aid is especially important. 

Ind [to Dem1]: You cannot and never will state what principle your opinion hangs on.  You have ZERO logical constructs to demonstrate how it could possibly be true.  Every single word you type applies to Elon Musk and no one else because this rant of yours is little more than a rhetorical temper tantrum.  If I was to ask you for a rule we could use to evaluate future actions like what Musk did, you'd never answer because you don't know, but even if you did answer it would be devoid of specifics, principles, and even logical rules… Money is added and cut to budgets all over the world.  You are absolutely not the morality police that gets to decide what cuts are murder and what cuts aren't. 

Dem1: It's the heartlessness, the needless death, the abandonment of both the people whose health and well-being depended on us and the people who have devoted their careers to supporting those people that tears me up. Most of the problems in the world are caused by psychopaths. [my italics]

September 2025 Debate Club Email Exchanges re: Jimmy Kimmel Suspension

Con: Recommended reading: “Now the Left Cares About Free Speech Again” [By Bret Stephens/Opinion Columnist/ New York Times.  Sept. 23, 2025]

Dem2: Stephens' article is whataboutism, trying to equate what Trump is doing to what Biden did, by leaving out huge elephants in the room. But these are grotesquely-disproportionate false-equivalences. Nothing Democrats or Biden did remotely compares to what the Trump Administration is doing. 

Me: This has nothing to do with false-equivalence" - to discern the underlying principles informing judgments of wrong-doing, you examine different cases…If what the government did to Kimmel was "horrific" and what the Biden administration did for years is deemed "OK", then I want to understand the principles informing those very different judgments. If these principles can't be articulated, then defending one side's actions and condemning the others looks like special pleading, eg, because Biden is on "my team" - a basically partisan/political foundation for judgments and not any basic principles. 

As for "whataboutism", that's only a problem if it's meant to deflect attention from a real problem or to downplay the problem. It's a good thing if the purpose is to shed light on judgements of approval and disapproval, eg, core principles, partisan loyalty, partisan hatred,  etc.  

 "Whataboutism" is one of those much abused and overused slap-down words that have an air of finality about them but often seem intended to stop a certain line of thought or discussion: can't go there - it's whataboutism! 

Dem1: Whataboutism, as you say, is a way to change the conversation from the topic under discussion to a comparison that may or may not be relevant, but certainly distracts from whatever questionable action or statement is being analyzed, which was the original focus of our conversation.  

Dem2: Whataboutism…trying to equate what Trump is doing to what Biden did…. 

Dem1: Whataboutism wins debates, but it's not particularly useful.

I would summarize the whataboutism accusers’ felt-truths in these exchanges as Trump and Musk are evil psychopaths and the Democrats must triumph against them and their supporters. And the goal of their whataboutism accusations? To close off discussions that challenge or minimize their felt-truths.

But what about those who were accused of whataboutism? What were they hoping to accomplish? I would say lots of things: to reveal the hypocrisy, double-standards and rigid moralizing of their accusers, their thoughtlessness and unwillingness to shift to a more abstract discussion of principles, logic, evidence and comparisons. The accused weren’t trying to soften criticism of Trump but to get the accusers to acknowledge the shortcomings of Democrats – as a necessary first step to improve the political culture and governance in this poor country.