What aboutism is a common response to any argument that points out the inconsistencies in reporting of events. It relies on the premise that all atrocities or breaches of human rights in all countries should be called out, a morally justifiable point.

However, in most case where an argument is made about similar situations, the point being made is not about the moral justification of either - it simply points out the inconsistency of being very vocal about one event while remaining silent on a similar event in one's own country or organisation.

A common forum for accusations of what-aboutism is the reflection by many on how the incredibly high rates of incarceration in the US is deemed acceptable to many while detention in Xinjiang raises accusations of 'genocide'.

This issue is 'easy ground' for an accusation of 'what-aboutism', since many people find the incarceration rates of the US morally unacceptable. The problem here is not what-aboutism, but a false equivalence. The two circumstances are not equivalent - the US history of detention is obvious and well documented; the detention in Xinjiang has simply been catastrophised.

What is important in any conversation of detention is to set a base line for what constitutes proper or justifiable detention and how any countries actions stand against that line. Thus, establishing fact and context is vital. Labelling an argument as “what-aboutism” is simply lazy, or more likely, designed to obfuscate the issue.