Official term for "whataboutism"?

A person complains about problem with person T.

Instead of responding to the point made about T the second person says, "What about person O?"

So, instead of responding to the statement about T Person 2 deflects the argument to something about Person O.

Is there an "official" name for this type of fallacy?

Example:

Person 1: John is setting a bad example by jay walking in a school zone.

Person 2: What about Delores? She jay walks wherever she goes.

This is sort of a fallacy of a faulty generalization beyond this issue at hand when shifting the argument to propose that if other people do this than . . .

Generalizing the argument to what others do is trying to shift the the argument away from John responsibility concerning his actions.

There may a better fallacy to describe this. I would like to here the suggestions of others.

At first blush this may seem similar to a classic tu quoque logical fallacy (subset of ad hominem), which usually applies to the inconsistency of a single individual’s assertion or behavior.

Fred: “You shouldn’t eat fried food, it may cause heart disease.”
Mary: “You eat fried food all the time.”

The fallacy lies in the Premise (fried food causing or contributing to heart disease) not being invalidated by the inconsistent behavior of the asserter. (Note: the Premise may or may not be objectively true; this is irrelevant to the presence of a logical fallacy)

The OP’s example is a bit different:

Person 1: John is setting a bad example by jay walking in a school zone.

Person 2: What about Delores? She jay walks wherever she goes.

Differences are:

1.There is no reference to an INCONSISTENT assertion or behavior of the asserter, Person 1) who is making a statement (Premise) about another individual’s (John) “bad example.” Rather, another party (Delores) is subsequently introduced.
2.(More importantly) Person 2’s reply is neutral. It is not asserting an inconsistency with Person 1’s premise. At most it is ‘Jumping on the bandwagon’ (i.e. Dolores is doing the same thing as John) - falling short of an attempt to either validate or refute this Premise.


Given the above, I see no evidence laws of logic were violated, thus I see no logical fallacy.

When JUDGMENT is personal, they use logic to justify their actions. The Organon philosophers use, is a tool that is double-edged!Ignatius Udunuwara

It seems to me that this is clearly a non sequitur . The full syllogism, as I see it:

P1: A person who jaywalks sets a bad example.
P2: John jaywalks.
C: John is setting a bad example.

Saying Delores jaywalks does nothing to refute either of the predicates. It also doesn't counter how they logically reach the conclusion.

Delores's behavior is totally unrelated to John's behavior or the example it sets.

@Jim Tarsi makes an interesting point, one well worth considering. However, I disagree for the following reason:

A classic non sequitur is an invalid Argument in which the Conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true (and is thus fallacious.) The Latin phrase translates to “it does not follow.”

While there are different types of non sequiturs, their common element generally conforms to a formalized structure consisting of an Argument containing both a Subject statement(s) and a Conclusion, e.g.,

“My niece is highly promiscuous. She lives in NY. All New Yorkers are highly promiscuous.”
“John was arrested for DUI ten years ago. He is (now) definitely an alcoholic.”
“My dog killed a rat. All dogs are ratters.”

Notice that a common element to this structure is not only the presence of, but an “absoluteness” of the Conclusion.

If we were to tweak one of the above examples slightly:

“John was arrested for DUI ten years ago. It’s POSSIBLE he is (now) an alcoholic” – you strongly mitigate the presence of a non sequitur.

Getting back to the OP’s question and your analysis, I do not see

1. that the OP’s example lends itself to the required non sequitur argument/conclusion structure, and
2.that the “Conclusion” (if one exists at all) is sufficiently absolute to meet the
requirements for constituting a true non sequitur.

Again, the OP’s framework:

Person 1 John is setting a bad example by jay walking in a school zone.
Person 2: What about Delores? She jay walks wherever she goes.

1. Your (parsing) syllogism (of P1)

P1: A person who jaywalks sets a bad example.
P2: John jaywalks.
C: John is setting a bad example.

is useful in that it provides a good example of Deductive reasoning/logic (i.e., a non, non sequitur:) but it does not add or reveal anything, since it is already posited by P1 that ”JOHN IS SETTING A BAD EXAMPLE by jay walking in a school zone.” However, P1’s verbatim statement could comprise the Subject of a POTENTIAL Argument.

2. I submit that P2’s neutral statement concerning Delores does not comprise a Conclusion, and when combined with P1’s statement, the totality doesn’t even form an argument. QED, lacking a discernable Argument with a Conclusion, the OP’s framework is not conducive to the presence of a non sequitur (argument).

To show a reasonable alternative, let’s try to force feed a non sequitur into this, using only slightly modified parameters:

P1 John is setting a bad example by jay walking in a school zone.
P2 Delores also jay walks repeatedly
P3 (Conclusion) ANYONE jay walking sets a bad example

I would argue that here, unlike the OP’s case, we have the requisite structure & elements for a non sequitur argument: a. an actual Argument with a Conclusion b. the Conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and c: the Conclusion is presented as an ABSOLUTE.

I welcome further thoughts.

Would this not be an example of Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) or missing the point?

I'm a newbie to some of these terms, but my understanding of the definition of irrelevant conclusion is presenting an argument that may or may not be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question.

Could it also be considered Avoiding the Question?

As Dr. Bo points out, your examples may point to other fallacies that do not answer your original question. Here's Merriam Webster's definition of
"Whatboutism" to be more precise:

"Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

Whataboutism adds a twist to tu quoque by directing its energies into establishing an equivalence between two or more disparate actions, thereby defaming the accuser with the insinuation that their priorities are backwards.