Trap · reasoning move
◆ "What about you?"
Sounds like: “But what about… / You did it too.”
A criticism is answered by pointing to the critic's (or their side's) own inconsistency or wrongdoing, instead of by addressing the criticism.
Signs
the reply changes subject to the critic's side; 'what about…' before the original point is answered; a list of other countries offered instead of an answer.
Questions to ask
Is the original criticism true or false, regardless of who makes it? Would I accept this answer if the roles were reversed? What would a consistent standard say about both cases?
Example
'You backed sanctions on Iran, so you can't call pressure on Israel collective punishment' — hypocrisy doesn't settle the case.
The mirror
'Arab states treat Palestinians worse, so Israel's policies are fine' — the same move from the other side.
What it is.
'You too' (Latin tu quoque) points at hypocrisy. Hypocrisy matters for judging a critic's credibility, but it doesn't make the criticism false: an inconsistent person can still be right. In this debate both sides use it constantly — sanctions on Iran vs pressure on Israel; Western colonial histories vs Israel; Arab states' treatment of refugees vs Israel's. The honest use is a consistency test: 'apply this standard everywhere' — and then actually apply it.
Why it works on us
- Inconsistency is real and worth exposing — double standards are a genuine problem.
- If the critic does the same thing, their outrage seems insincere.
- It feels unfair to be judged by people who don't apply their standard to themselves.
Where this trap shows up
Your side does it too — look at both columns.