Accountability has become a rare commodity. When someone makes a questionable move—whether it’s a public figure making an offensive gesture or a company making dubious claims—the most common response isn’t reflection. It’s deflection. The excuses start flowing, the narratives shift, and before you know it, the original issue is buried under layers of spin. But there’s a simple test that cuts through all this noise instantly.
The principle is straightforward: if someone claims something is “no big deal,” ask them to demonstrate that belief in practice. When a pundit says a controversial gesture isn’t problematic, challenge them to replicate it. When someone dismisses harmful language as “just words,” ask them to say those words aloud. The reaction—whether it’s hesitation, squirming, or outright refusal—reveals the truth faster than any lengthy debate.
This isn’t about creating conflict; it’s about exposing inconsistency. The moment someone can’t or won’t follow their own logic in practice, you’ve uncovered the core issue.
Why The “Do It Yourself” Test Works So Well
The power of this approach lies in its simplicity and directness. It bypasses intellectual arguments and goes straight to behavioral consistency. When Scott Jennings dismissed Elon Musk’s Nazi salute as “no big deal,” Catherine Rampell’s challenge to “do it right here on TV” wasn’t just confrontational—it was diagnostic. The squirming that followed wasn’t about discomfort with public scrutiny; it was about the impossibility of justifying the behavior in practice.
This test leverages what we might call the “Mulaney Principle”: if you can’t say it or do it yourself, then you know where the truth lies. The same way John Mulaney pointed out that we know which word is worse when one can’t be spoken aloud, we know which actions are truly acceptable when people won’t replicate them. The refusal itself becomes the evidence.
Consider how often this plays out in everyday life. When someone says “I don’t see race,” but then avoids mentioning racial slurs by saying “the N word,” they’re already demonstrating that they do, in fact, see race—and that certain words carry weight they won’t acknowledge publicly. The test doesn’t require elaborate explanations; the behavior speaks for itself.
The Psychology Behind Deflection And Denial
People and organizations resort to deflection for predictable reasons. First, there’s the desire to avoid consequences. Second, there’s the strategic simplification of complex issues into manageable soundbites. Third, there’s the power dynamic at play—those with influence often believe they can dictate the narrative simply by repeating their version of events.
What makes the “do it yourself” test so effective is that it disrupts these dynamics. It forces a moment of personal accountability that can’t be delegated to PR teams or rhetorical gymnastics. When Elon Musk made Nazi jokes after the salute incident, it wasn’t a mistake—it was a confirmation. He knew exactly what he was doing and how it would be received. The companies that continued advertising with him weren’t just complicit; they were making a clear statement about their values (or lack thereof).
This pattern repeats across industries and contexts. The moment someone can’t follow their own advice or demonstrate their own claims, you’ve identified the point of weakness. It’s not about winning arguments; it’s about identifying integrity gaps.
How To Apply This Test In Real Life
You don’t need a television platform or public stage to use this principle. The same test works in personal relationships, professional settings, and community discussions. When someone dismisses your concerns about their behavior, you can ask: “If it’s not a problem, why don’t you do it this way with me?” When someone claims certain actions are acceptable for others but not for them, you can point out the double standard directly.
The key is to frame it not as an attack, but as a test of consistency. “I’m not trying to make you uncomfortable,” you might say. “I’m just trying to understand why this is acceptable in one context but not another.” This approach shifts the focus from personal confrontation to principle examination.
What you’ll often find is that people who make broad claims about what’s acceptable suddenly develop very specific exceptions when faced with personal application. These exceptions aren’t mistakes; they’re revelations. They show you exactly where someone’s principles end and their self-interest begins.
The Cost Of Ignoring The Red Flags
When we fail to apply this kind of accountability test, we enable a system where harmful behavior is normalized through repetition and deflection. The gaslighting that followed Elon Musk’s salute wasn’t just about that single incident; it was about establishing a pattern where increasingly boundary-pushing behavior could be dismissed with increasing ease.
Every time a company continues advertising with a platform that hosts harmful content, they’re making a calculation. Every time a media outlet gives disproportionate platform to contrarian voices with no substance, they’re making a calculation. And every time we fail to demand consistency between words and actions, we participate in that calculation.
The cumulative effect is a cultural environment where accountability becomes progressively harder to enforce. What starts as small boundary violations becomes normalized, then escalated, until we reach a point where obvious transgressions are met with collective shrugs.
Beyond The Individual Test: Systemic Accountability
While the “do it yourself” test is powerful at the individual level, its true impact comes when applied systemically. When enough people recognize the pattern of deflection and demand consistency, institutions begin to change. The advertisers who pulled out of X/Twitter weren’t just responding to public pressure; they were recognizing a pattern that threatened their own brand integrity.
This is where the test moves from personal confrontation to structural change. When we consistently demand that organizations and public figures demonstrate the principles they claim to uphold, we create pressure points that can’t be easily ignored. The lawsuits, the boycotts, the public challenges—they all function as larger-scale versions of the same principle: if you can’t walk your talk, you’ll be called out for it.
The beauty of this approach is that it doesn’t require perfect execution. It doesn’t demand that we always win or that we always have the perfect argument. It simply requires that we consistently apply the same standards to everyone, and that we demand the same level of accountability from those in positions of power as we would from ourselves.
The Final Test: Are You Willing To Apply It To Yourself?
The most revealing aspect of this accountability test is how it exposes our own inconsistencies. When we demand consistency from others, we must be prepared to apply the same standard to ourselves. The principles that reveal bullshit in others will inevitably reveal it in ourselves as well.
This isn’t about creating a perfect world where everyone always follows through. It’s about establishing a baseline where words and actions align closely enough that we can trust what people say. In a world where manipulation tactics are increasingly sophisticated, this simple test remains one of our most powerful tools for cutting through the noise.
The next time you encounter a situation where someone’s words don’t match their actions, remember the principle: if they can’t do it themselves, they know it’s wrong. And if they know it’s wrong but continue to defend it, you’ve identified exactly where their integrity ends. That knowledge, more than any argument or debate, is what gives you the power to navigate our increasingly complex social landscape with clarity and confidence.