Red Herring and Whataboutism

Why It Matters

You know that frustrating experience when you’re arguing with someone and suddenly the conversation has shifted to a completely different topic, and you can’t quite figure out how you got there? That’s often a red herring at work. The original point was abandoned, a new topic was introduced, and the conversation followed the shiny new object instead of resolving the original question.

Red herrings are one of the oldest tricks in argument. The name comes from the practice of dragging a smoked fish across a trail to throw hunting dogs off the scent. In argument, a red herring throws the audience off the scent of the real issue. It doesn’t refute the original point. It replaces it with something else and hopes nobody notices.

Whataboutism is the most weaponized form of the red herring, and you encounter it constantly: in political debate, in family arguments, in school disputes, and especially online. It’s the move of responding to any criticism with “But what about...” followed by something the critic has done wrong. It feels like a counterargument. It isn’t one.

A Story

The Campaign Forum

Two eighth-graders, Jordan and Sienna, were running for student body president. The school held a public forum where students could ask them questions.

A student stood up and asked Jordan: “You promised to get water fountains replaced with bottle-filling stations. It’s been two months since you made that promise as class representative. Nothing has happened. What’s the status?”

Jordan paused, then said: “You know what I think we should really be talking about? The cafeteria food. I surveyed 200 students and 85% want better lunch options. That’s the real issue that affects everyone every day. I have a detailed plan for that, and I’d love to share it.”

The audience started nodding. The cafeteria food was a popular complaint. The conversation shifted. Twenty minutes later, nobody remembered that the water fountain question was never answered.

Later in the forum, a student asked Sienna: “Your campaign poster says you’ll make the dress code more flexible. But last year, you reported students for dress code violations as a hall monitor. How do you explain that?”

Sienna responded: “Well, what about Jordan? He says he wants to improve the school, but he’s been late to class fourteen times this semester. If he can’t even show up on time, how is he going to lead anything?”

The audience murmured. Jordan’s attendance record became the topic. Nobody noticed that Sienna had never answered the question about her own inconsistency.

After the forum, the school newspaper editor, a junior named Priya, wrote a column. “Both candidates dodged questions today,” she wrote. “Jordan was asked about unfulfilled promises and pivoted to cafeteria food. Sienna was asked about her own record and deflected to Jordan’s attendance. Neither trick addressed the actual question. If you can’t answer a question directly, say so. But don’t pretend that changing the subject is the same as giving an answer.”

Vocabulary

Red herring

An argument or piece of information introduced to divert attention away from the real issue. A red herring doesn’t address the original point — it replaces it with a different topic. Named after the practice of using a strong-smelling fish to throw dogs off a trail.

Whataboutism

A specific type of red herring in which someone responds to a criticism or accusation by pointing to something the critic (or someone else) has done. “You criticize me for X? What about your Y?” The critic’s behavior doesn’t address the original charge. Even if the “what about” is true, it’s a subject change, not a rebuttal.

Deflection

Any move that redirects a question or criticism away from the person or topic being addressed. Deflection can take many forms: changing the subject, attacking the questioner, bringing up a different issue, or making a joke. The key feature is that the original point goes unanswered.

Pivoting

A more sophisticated form of deflection, common in politics and media. The speaker acknowledges the question briefly (or not at all) and then steers the conversation to a topic they’d rather discuss. “That’s a great question, but the real issue is...” Politicians are often explicitly trained to pivot.

Staying on point

The discipline of keeping a discussion focused on the original question until it’s actually addressed. Harder than it sounds, because red herrings and pivots are designed to feel natural and interesting. Staying on point requires noticing when the subject has changed and pulling it back.

Guided Teaching

The red herring is deceptively simple: change the subject and hope nobody notices. But in practice, it’s devastatingly effective, because humans are naturally drawn to new and interesting topics. When Jordan pivoted from water fountains to cafeteria food, the audience followed willingly. The new topic was more interesting, more relatable, and Jordan had data to share. The water fountain question was boring by comparison. But boring or not, it was the actual question. And it went completely unanswered. Did you notice that while reading the story, or did you follow the pivot too?

Whataboutism is the version that shows up most in everyday arguments, and it’s worth understanding deeply because you will encounter it almost daily. Here’s the structure: Person A criticizes Person B. Person B responds: “What about when YOU did [something bad]?” The conversation shifts from B’s behavior to A’s behavior. B never addresses the original criticism. The critical point is: even if the “what about” is completely true, it doesn’t address the original charge. If someone says, “You broke the window,” and you respond, “Well, you broke a plate last week,” you have changed the subject. You haven’t denied breaking the window, explained it, or defended it. You’ve just pointed at someone else.

Whataboutism has a long political history. During the Cold War, Soviet officials responded to American criticism of human rights abuses with: “What about your treatment of Black Americans?” The American treatment of Black Americans was a legitimate and serious issue. But raising it in response to criticism of Soviet gulags was not a rebuttal — it was a deflection. Both things could be true simultaneously. America could have race problems AND the Soviet Union could have human rights abuses. Pointing out one doesn’t erase the other. Why does whataboutism feel like a strong response even though it doesn’t actually address the original point?

Here’s why it feels so effective: whataboutism exploits a legitimate moral intuition — that hypocrites shouldn’t lecture others. If you speed and then tell me not to speed, it feels wrong. And that feeling is partially valid: hypocrisy is a character flaw. But here’s the thing you learned in the ad hominem lesson — the speaker’s character doesn’t change the truth of the argument. Speeding is dangerous whether the person telling you that is a hypocrite or a saint. The hypocrisy is worth noting, but it doesn’t answer the question of whether you should stop speeding.

How do you respond when someone uses whataboutism on you? The best move is simple and direct: “That may be a fair point, and we can discuss it. But first, let’s finish the question we’re on.” This does two things: it acknowledges that their “what about” might be legitimate, and it refuses to let the original topic be abandoned. How do you respond when YOU are tempted to use whataboutism? Catch yourself. If someone criticizes you and your first instinct is to point at their flaws, that’s a deflection instinct, not a truth-seeking instinct. Address the criticism first. Then, if their behavior is genuinely relevant, you can bring it up as a separate conversation.

The red herring is particularly dangerous in important conversations — the kind where something real is at stake. Family financial decisions, school policy debates, political arguments about serious issues. These conversations often involve uncomfortable questions that people would rather not answer. The red herring gives them an exit. And because the audience is usually happy to follow the new, more comfortable topic, the uncomfortable question dies quietly. Think about the last time a hard question went unanswered in a conversation you witnessed. Was a red herring involved?

Priya’s newspaper column modeled the ideal response: name what happened. “The question was X. The answer was about Y. The original question was never addressed.” That’s all it takes. You don’t need to accuse anyone of bad faith. You don’t need to be aggressive. You just need to notice the switch and point it out. The ability to say, calmly and clearly, “You haven’t actually answered the question” is one of the most powerful tools in clear communication.

For Discussion

1. 1.What is a red herring? How does it work in an argument?
2. 2.In the campaign forum story, how did Jordan avoid answering the water fountain question? How did Sienna avoid answering the dress code question?
3. 3.What is whataboutism? Why does it feel like a strong response even though it doesn’t address the original point?
4. 4.How is whataboutism related to the ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies you learned about earlier?
5. 5.How would you respond if someone used whataboutism against you? What if you caught yourself using it?
6. 6.Is every topic change in a conversation a red herring? How can you tell the difference between a natural shift and a deliberate deflection?
7. 7.Think about a recent political interview or debate you’ve seen. Did any participant pivot away from a question? How was it handled?

Practice

Red Herring Tracker

1. 1.Watch a political interview, a debate, or a discussion program (or read a transcript of one). Track every time someone is asked a question. For each question, record:
2. 2.1. What was the question?
3. 3.2. What was the response?
4. 4.3. Did the response actually address the question, or did it change the subject?
5. 5.4. If the subject changed, what was the new topic? Was the original question ever answered?
6. 6.If you can’t find a political interview, try this with a family disagreement or a social media argument thread (with permission). The same patterns apply.
7. 7.Alternatively, think of three times someone has used whataboutism in an argument with you or near you. For each, identify: what was the original criticism, what was the “what about,” and was the original criticism ever addressed?
8. 8.Discuss with a parent: how would your family arguments change if everyone agreed to stay on the original topic until it was fully addressed?

Memory Questions

1. 1.What is a red herring? Where does the name come from?
2. 2.What is whataboutism? How is it different from other red herrings?
3. 3.In the campaign forum story, how did each candidate avoid answering the question they were asked?
4. 4.Why does whataboutism feel like a strong response even though it doesn’t address the original criticism?
5. 5.How can you tell the difference between a genuine topic change and a deliberate deflection?
6. 6.What is the best way to respond when someone changes the subject to avoid your question?