It might be, of course, that the whataboutism inconsistency can be addressed, but that is simply the issue for rational, good debate. It points at a flaw or at least shortcoming which needs to be addressed. If someone says, “taking in Syrian refugees is wrong”, and someone “whatabouts” with “so why are you okay with taking in Ukrainian refugees?”, then that’s a legitimate counterpoint and argument. Pointing out inconsistency in an argument. Done properly, it can be a legitimate way to argue. It’s a fair criticism of whataboutisms.īut a whataboutism need not always be a logical fallacy. If China Daily ran a piece saying, “China is the best at table tennis,” the ad hominem would be, “You would say that: You’re owned by the Chinese government.” In terms of whataboutism, asking about Hannah’s affair is a personal attack on her rather than the immorality of polyamory.

This is where a speaker attacks the person or source of an argument instead of the argument itself. Philosophers, logicians, and debaters often dislike whataboutisms because they’re similar to ad hominem attacks. It’s something media strategists and spin doctors exploit every day - it’s when the whataboutism amounts to “Oh, look over there!” Good and bad whataboutism Johnson’s point was that if you present the public with one showy, ridiculous, or scandalous piece of news, they forget altogether about this much more difficult one. The dead cat is all the family is talking about. Then, in walks grandpa, who slams a huge, mangy, and very dead cat on the table. The idea is to imagine a family screaming and shouting about some years-old argument. In 2013, the future Prime Minister of the UK, Boris Johnson, wrote an article describing a “dead cat” strategy of politics.

Red herring fallacy political debate