Ever been in a conversation where you bring up a valid point, only to have the other person completely sidestep it by pointing out someone else's (often unrelated) wrongdoing? You might have just encountered the age-old tactic known as "whataboutism."

Whataboutism is a rhetorical strategy used to deflect criticism by pointing to someone else's flaws or mistakes. Instead of addressing an issue, a person shifts focus by saying, "Yeah, maybe I did that, but what about what they did?"

A Lok Sabha session is a classic example of this.

Person A: "Your party failed to handle this crisis well."

Person B: "But what about when your party did the same thing?"

Rather than discussing the criticism, Person B sidesteps the issue, shutting down meaningful debate.

Whataboutism can be surprisingly effective, even when it's transparent. Here's why:

Appeals to Hypocrisy: It taps into our natural aversion to hypocrisy. Pointing out inconsistencies in someone's behavior can be a powerful way to undermine their credibility.

Diverts Attention: It's a classic distraction technique. By shifting the focus to someone else's actions, it can effectively derail the original criticism.

Creates Moral Equivalence: It implies that because others have done wrong, the current issue is somehow less important or excusable.

Here's where things get tricky. Sometimes, pointing out hypocrisy can be relevant and important. If someone is consistently applying a double standard, it's fair to call them out. Context can be important, and nuanced discussion may be necessary.

However, the key difference lies in the intent. Is the goal to genuinely highlight hypocrisy and promote fairness, or is it simply to evade responsibility and shut down the conversation? 

If the primary purpose is to avoid addressing the initial issue, it's likely whataboutism.