6 ms·

Invoking whataboutism is not a defense against hypocrisy.

by ionised 8y ago

aurailious 8y ago
Invoking whataboutism is an attempt to shut down conversation.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
friedman23 8y ago
Well I was never trying to defend against hypocrisy and no hypocrisy is present in the actions of the US considering these international norms were developed by the US more than a century after the supposed IP theft by the US took place. Using the argument that some country did the same thing 100 or 200 years before is a child's argument and holds no weight. The Chinese government by taking advantage of the international order developed by the US has sown the seeds for the trade retaliation that is taking place today (to the detriment of everyone).
bduerst 8y ago
Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy is not a defense of bad behavior.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  It does delegitimize the complaint
- jessaustin 8y ago
  It is a proof that the behavior in question isn't "bad" in the first place.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bduerst 8y ago
    The tu quoque fallacy [1] is not proof. Stealing IP without contributing to creation costs is bad behavior on several levels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#The_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#The_fallacy
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      You assume that "IP" is a real thing. It is an invented concept. Those who insist on its reality do so for their own benefit. Those who deny it, do so for their own. How are disinterested parties to decide? Well, they might examine how genuine the two positions are... There is a difference between "I can do this bad thing, because you have already done it" and "this thing is not bad, otherwise you wouldn't have done it". Tu quoque addresses the former situation, not the latter.
      - bduerst 8y ago
        Whether or not IP is "real" is a red herring from hypocrisy being a valid defense for bad behavior. You can split hairs on the definition of IP, but the general consensus in economics is that you need to ensure coverage of the fixed creation costs of intellectual property to ensure robust investment in your society. And no, tu quoque definitively intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion. This applies to whataboutism, and exactly what we're talking about in this thread of deflecting back to the U.S.'s inconsistent behavior in the past.

Invoking whataboutism is not a defense against hypocrisy.

aurailious 8y ago

Invoking whataboutism is an attempt to shut down conversation.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

friedman23 8y ago

Well I was never trying to defend against hypocrisy and no hypocrisy is present in the actions of the US considering these international norms were developed by the US more than a century after the supposed IP theft by the US took place. Using the argument that some country did the same thing 100 or 200 years before is a child's argument and holds no weight. The Chinese government by taking advantage of the international order developed by the US has sown the seeds for the trade retaliation that is taking place today (to the detriment of everyone).

bduerst 8y ago

Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy is not a defense of bad behavior.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
It does delegitimize the complaint
jessaustin 8y ago
It is a proof that the behavior in question isn't "bad" in the first place.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 8y ago
  The tu quoque fallacy [1] is not proof. Stealing IP without contributing to creation costs is bad behavior on several levels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#The_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#The_fallacy
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    You assume that "IP" is a real thing. It is an invented concept. Those who insist on its reality do so for their own benefit. Those who deny it, do so for their own. How are disinterested parties to decide? Well, they might examine how genuine the two positions are... There is a difference between "I can do this bad thing, because you have already done it" and "this thing is not bad, otherwise you wouldn't have done it". Tu quoque addresses the former situation, not the latter.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Whether or not IP is "real" is a red herring from hypocrisy being a valid defense for bad behavior. You can split hairs on the definition of IP, but the general consensus in economics is that you need to ensure coverage of the fixed creation costs of intellectual property to ensure robust investment in your society. And no, tu quoque definitively intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion. This applies to whataboutism, and exactly what we're talking about in this thread of deflecting back to the U.S.'s inconsistent behavior in the past.