When Distraction Becomes a Debate Strategy: Red Herrings, Whataboutism, and the Art of Avoiding the Point

 

There are important conversations happening around us every day.

Social issues. Education. Leadership. Race. Politics. Workplace culture. Economics. Community. We cannot, and probably should not, ignore all of them.

That doesn't mean we need to be ten toes down on every issue that crosses our screen. Sometimes listening is more valuable than speaking. Sometimes we don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

But meaningful progress requires meaningful discussion. And meaningful discussion becomes nearly impossible when someone isn't actually interested in discussing the issue at hand.

I encountered this recently during what I thought was a productive online conversation. Different perspectives were being shared, people disagreed, and that was perfectly fine.

Then someone repeatedly tried to steer the conversation somewhere else.

Not because the new question helped us examine the original issue more deeply. It didn't. It distracted from it, and there is actually a name for this: The Red Herring.

A red herring fallacy occurs when an irrelevant or tangential issue is introduced that diverts attention away from the original argument. Closely related is whataboutism: "Yes, but what about...?"

The new subject may even be legitimate. That's what makes the tactic effective. But whether the new subject is important isn't necessarily the point. The question is whether it addresses the issue currently being discussed.

Imagine a workplace discussion about why employee turnover has increased, and someone asks: "Why have we lost 30% of our staff this year?”, and the response is: "Well, employees today aren't as loyal as they used to be".

Maybe that's an interesting conversation. But it doesn't answer the question.

Now everyone can spend twenty minutes debating generational work ethic while nobody examines compensation, leadership, workload, organizational culture, or why people actually left. The conversation has been successfully redirected.

Not Every Tangent Is a Fallacy, this distinction matters.

Conversations naturally wander. People ask clarifying questions. Someone may introduce another perspective because they genuinely believe it changes the analysis. That's discussion. The problem arises when diversion becomes a substitute for addressing the original point. This is especially noticeable in conversations involving contentious social or political issues. Instead of examining an uncomfortable question, we introduce another injustice, another group, another politician, another incident, another institution.

And suddenly we're arguing about everything except what we started talking about. The original question quietly disappears.

Bring the Conversation Back

We don't have to chase every distraction. Sometimes the most productive response is remarkably simple: "That's an interesting question, and perhaps we should discuss it separately. But it doesn't address the question we're discussing right now".

Then return to the point. That isn't refusing to engage. It's insisting that we actually finish one conversation before beginning another. And this applies far beyond social media.

It happens in staff meetings.

It happens in classrooms.

It happens in relationships.

It happens in boardrooms.

It certainly happens in politics.

We cannot solve difficult problems if every uncomfortable conversation is allowed to become a conversation about something else. Progress cannot happen where distraction replaces discussion, honesty is missing, and malice becomes the objective.

Disagreement is healthy.

Questions are healthy.

Different perspectives are healthy.

But if we're going to have meaningful conversations about difficult subjects, we have to be willing to discuss the issue that's actually in front of us.

Reflection: how do we keep difficult conversations focused without shutting down legitimate questions or different perspectives?

Dr. Flavius A. B. Akerele III, EdD, MBA