8 ms·

It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies. Even with

by mygo 9y ago

It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.

Passthepeas 9y ago
I think it does more to illustrate hypocrisy and priorities than anything; it's like worrying about another driver's flat tire, when your own car is literally on fire. Though I do understand and agree with your overall sentiment.
- losteric 9y ago
  On the other hand, it's reasonable to worry about another driver's car being on fire despite your own flat tire.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Huh? No, these are simply USSR-style what-aboutisms that China has inherited.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Accusation of "what-aboutism" is the real BS cold-war trick (notice how it's also one-sided itself: it's an accusation against the other side of which the good people of our side are clear). It amounts to "put on blinders and follow your side when it accuses the other, and never see things in perspective". It generally means that only one side has the right to criticize (if the other side answers back, it's "whataboutism") -- and that third parties shouldn't call bot the pot and kettle black (it's whataboutism to even mention the pot), and instead should listen to the pot accusing the kettle of blackness. Even worse when it's not bloody business of the pot what the kettle does -- but they want to make it so anyway, because they like to boss other kitchen implements around.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      There is nothing different from the above what aboutisms to the ones the USSR used, they are actually almost verbatim. China throws around logical fallacies (what aboutism, red herrings, slippery slopes) all the time, it makes me wonder if chinese high schools teach their positive use in rhetoric/debate classes. I’m one of the first ones to criticize the USA, there is plenty that is wrong to talk about! But open up a thread that is critical of the USA and you’ll rarely see Americans bringing up problems in China, yet discussions about China almost always lead back to discussions about the USA! When china is ready to talk about its problems without referring to the USA, well, it will be ready to become a superpower. Right now they just come off as insecure.
elago 9y ago
As a US citizen it is a valid argument because those "other guys" is our own country. It's not "don't go after those guys", but "take care of our own problems first". This way, when offering solutions to other oppressive countries we wouldn't look like hypocrites. Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?
- mitchty 9y ago
  > Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise? Yes, they would be the ideal person to give that advice.
  - jsonderulio 9y ago
    Boom nailed it. I just don't want them correcting my form.
  - elago 9y ago
    Dang, okay, that was a stupid analogy I made. It should have been something like "If you're obese and sickly, should you spend your time evangelizing the importance of diet and exercise to other unhealthy people instead of eating right and exercising yourself?" I don't think its even a good analogy anymore though. I get that 'what-aboutism' is a logical fallacy in general, and it can prevent beneficial action from taking place. Isn't it a special case when the 'other party' is yourself? (obviously this is a US centric comment).
    - mitchty 9y ago
      Consider it simply that you should endeavor to take good advice no matter the source, even if they seem hypocritical. Bruce Lee was right in this regard, take what works from wherever you can. Worrying about the messenger being biased can ignore a really good tree in an overall forest.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Would you want McDonalds to give dietary advice, while at the same time pushing burgers and fries down the world's throat?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 9y ago
>It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies. Actually the argument is more like: bad guys shouldn't go after bad guys. It's hypocritical, self-serving in the name of some "cause", and creates worse outcomes. You know, like a bad guy going in to bring "democracy" (assert control for strategic interests and/or ensure cheap oil and favorable currency use) and ends up in chaos, civil war, fundamentalism, and refugee waves. Time and again. But I guess hypocrisy never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing. As for good guys, they can go after the bad guys all they want, and we'll even cheer for them.
- mygo 9y ago
  Fallacy. Bad guys can go after bad guys. Good guys can still go after the remaining bad guys. If we sit around waiting for he without sin to cast the stones, if on the off-chance that such a rare soul exists, then that small army-of-one will be outnumbered and overpowered and neutralized.

by mygo 9y ago

Passthepeas 9y ago

I think it does more to illustrate hypocrisy and priorities than anything; it's like worrying about another driver's flat tire, when your own car is literally on fire. Though I do understand and agree with your overall sentiment.

losteric 9y ago
On the other hand, it's reasonable to worry about another driver's car being on fire despite your own flat tire.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Huh? No, these are simply USSR-style what-aboutisms that China has inherited.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Accusation of "what-aboutism" is the real BS cold-war trick (notice how it's also one-sided itself: it's an accusation against the other side of which the good people of our side are clear). It amounts to "put on blinders and follow your side when it accuses the other, and never see things in perspective". It generally means that only one side has the right to criticize (if the other side answers back, it's "whataboutism") -- and that third parties shouldn't call bot the pot and kettle black (it's whataboutism to even mention the pot), and instead should listen to the pot accusing the kettle of blackness. Even worse when it's not bloody business of the pot what the kettle does -- but they want to make it so anyway, because they like to boss other kitchen implements around.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    There is nothing different from the above what aboutisms to the ones the USSR used, they are actually almost verbatim. China throws around logical fallacies (what aboutism, red herrings, slippery slopes) all the time, it makes me wonder if chinese high schools teach their positive use in rhetoric/debate classes. I’m one of the first ones to criticize the USA, there is plenty that is wrong to talk about! But open up a thread that is critical of the USA and you’ll rarely see Americans bringing up problems in China, yet discussions about China almost always lead back to discussions about the USA! When china is ready to talk about its problems without referring to the USA, well, it will be ready to become a superpower. Right now they just come off as insecure.

elago 9y ago

As a US citizen it is a valid argument because those "other guys" is our own country. It's not "don't go after those guys", but "take care of our own problems first". This way, when offering solutions to other oppressive countries we wouldn't look like hypocrites. Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?

mitchty 9y ago
> Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise? Yes, they would be the ideal person to give that advice.
- jsonderulio 9y ago
  Boom nailed it. I just don't want them correcting my form.
- elago 9y ago
  Dang, okay, that was a stupid analogy I made. It should have been something like "If you're obese and sickly, should you spend your time evangelizing the importance of diet and exercise to other unhealthy people instead of eating right and exercising yourself?" I don't think its even a good analogy anymore though. I get that 'what-aboutism' is a logical fallacy in general, and it can prevent beneficial action from taking place. Isn't it a special case when the 'other party' is yourself? (obviously this is a US centric comment).
  - mitchty 9y ago
    Consider it simply that you should endeavor to take good advice no matter the source, even if they seem hypocritical. Bruce Lee was right in this regard, take what works from wherever you can. Worrying about the messenger being biased can ignore a really good tree in an overall forest.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Would you want McDonalds to give dietary advice, while at the same time pushing burgers and fries down the world's throat?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 9y ago

>It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies. Actually the argument is more like: bad guys shouldn't go after bad guys. It's hypocritical, self-serving in the name of some "cause", and creates worse outcomes. You know, like a bad guy going in to bring "democracy" (assert control for strategic interests and/or ensure cheap oil and favorable currency use) and ends up in chaos, civil war, fundamentalism, and refugee waves. Time and again. But I guess hypocrisy never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing. As for good guys, they can go after the bad guys all they want, and we'll even cheer for them.

mygo 9y ago
Fallacy. Bad guys can go after bad guys. Good guys can still go after the remaining bad guys. If we sit around waiting for he without sin to cast the stones, if on the off-chance that such a rare soul exists, then that small army-of-one will be outnumbered and overpowered and neutralized.