Whataboutism vs False equivalence
What is the difference, when does each apply, and can both be at work at once.
Whataboutism
Answering a criticism by pointing at a fault of the critic or of someone else, so that the original charge is never addressed and the conversation moves to the counter-charge.
False equivalence
Treating two things as equivalent because they share a feature, when they differ in scale, kind, or consequence so much that the comparison misleads.
The differences
| Whataboutism | False equivalence | |
|---|---|---|
| Move | Deflection. A charge is answered with a different charge against the accuser or someone else. | Comparison. Two things of different scale, kind, or consequence are treated as the same. |
| Form | "What about…?" A question that changes the subject. | "Both sides…" A statement that flattens a difference. |
| Purpose | To avoid answering, and to discredit the accuser. | To excuse one thing by pairing it with another, or to make a small thing look large. |
| Origin | A Cold War staple of Soviet replies to Western criticism; the word is from the 1970s. | A general error in reasoning, named in logic and in journalism. |
| The counter-move | Note the subject change, answer it briefly if you like, and return to the question. | Name the dimension on which the two things differ and compare them on it. |
| The tell | The reply is about something else. | The reply is about the same thing but the scales are wrong. |
Asked about the treatment of prisoners, a spokesman replies: "And what about your own country's prisons?" The question is not answered; a new one is opened.
A news report on two candidates' finances presents a bookkeeping error of a few hundred dollars and a multi-million-dollar fraud under the same headline: "Both campaigns face money questions".
Yes, and whataboutism usually contains a false equivalence: the "what about" only works as a deflection if the thing it points to is implied to be as bad as the thing it deflects from. The difference is in the move. Whataboutism changes the subject; false equivalence stays on it and mis-weighs it. A reply can do both, pointing elsewhere and claiming the two are the same, and each half needs its own answer.