Every time someone points out a double standard in politics, media, or public debate, especially about how Israel is subject to much different standards than other nations, they get hit with the same accusation: “That’s just whataboutism.”
The term "whataboutism" has become a rhetorical fire extinguisher, sprayed on any attempt to reveal hypocrisy.
Whataboutism can be used to avoid criticism, but it can also be used to expose double standards. Throwing out the accusation of "whataboutism" for the latter is an attempt to stifle debae, not to encourage good debat.
But what if there’s a better way to ask the question—one that doesn’t just swap blame, but tests whether the standard itself is real?
Enter the Red Team Clause. It asks a simple but devastating question:
Would this move be condemned if it came from the ideological opposition?
That’s it. No deflection, no excuse-making. Just a symmetry test.
Whataboutism is reactive. It says, “But what about when they did it?” The objection is that the supposedly guilty party is trying to dodge criticism by shifting attention.
Red Team testing is proactive. It says, “Would you apply the same standard if the sides were reversed?” The point is not to escape scrutiny, but to test whether the standard is principled or partisan.
One derails accountability. The other demands it.
Most rhetorical double standards only work because no one asks what would happen if the roles were flipped. A news outlet condemns rhetoric as “incitement” when one side uses it, but praises it as “resistance” when the other does. A policy framed as “authoritarian” in one administration gets rebranded as “pragmatic” in another.
The Red Team Clause catches these inversions by applying a mirror: if the same tactic, framing, or behavior would provoke outrage when used by the opposition, then the outrage itself is not about the principle: it’s about the tribe.
The beauty of the Red Team Clause is that it doesn’t excuse anything. If a tactic is wrong, it’s wrong no matter who does it. If it’s acceptable, it should be acceptable for everyone. What it exposes is the hidden asymmetry, when the rule itself is selectively applied.
That’s why the Red Team Clause is an essential diagnostic tool for epistemic integrity, not a rhetorical bludgeon. It reveals whether an argument rests on universal principles, or on partisan exemptions that collapse under scrutiny. An Israeli who wants a single Israeli state from the river to the sea is called a "warmonger" or an "ultra-nationalist extremist" or "hawkish" or a "Jewish supremacist." But a Palestinian that demands a single Palestinian state on the same borders never gets those kinds of labels. The Red Team Clause exposes the bias without having to ask "what about...?" Because it isn't only about the past but the present.
Calling out double standards isn’t cheap deflection. Done properly, it’s a test of whether people mean what they say. The Red Team Clause turns whataboutism’s reputation for evasion into a disciplined model of accountability.
In other words: if your standard only works one way, it’s not a standard at all.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy