Mistake Type:
Red Herring
Diverting attention from the stated issue by introducing an issue or topic that is superficially related but ultimately irrelevant to the original issue.
Examples:
In a discussion about improving the quality of healthcare in the country: “If people ate better and exercised more, we wouldn’t have as many health problems.”
In a discussion about reducing greenhouse gas emissions: “Climate change is a natural process, and we should be investing in ways to adapt to the new environment.”
In a discussion about Israel’s policies towards Palestinians: “You should be condemning Hamas instead of that kind of bothesideism.”
In a discussion about Donald Trump’s harsh treatment of illegal migrants: “Oh? Well, Obama deported more people than any other president in history.”
About Red Herring:
A good way to throw hunting dogs off of their assignment is to put smelly fish (e.g., herring) to the side of the trail. Similarly, a good way to avoid talking about a difficult issue or an argument that might undercut one’s own position is to bring up a different, controversial issue.
Social media doesn’t lend itself to orderly debate. For example, responses to a post aren’t ordered in a logical way and push the focus in all sorts of different directions. Regardless, a Red Herring distracts the audience, capturing their attention and steering the conversation away from the original topic. The Red Herring often takes the form, “That’s not the issue, THIS is the real problem.” Which is why it can sometimes go unnoticed or even applauded by other members of the same group. Whataboutism is one kind of Red Herring where a criticism of one party is shifted to a criticism of an opposing party.
The change of topic is often towards one that the issuer is more comfortable with (or, helps avoid discomfort), or towards one of the issuer’s favorite arguments. You’ll know it a Red Herring situation when you see a response that makes you think:
“Okay, fair enough, that is also a difficult issue. But can we stay focused here?”
or
“Yes, you’ve raised an issue that many people get wrong. But I (or the other user) was raising a different, more specific issue.”
Related:
Example from the wild:
