3 ms·

Again, pure sophism. You could say the same about government employee misconduct. It has no factual basis, it's just a generic statement designed to not address

Again, pure sophism. You could say the same about government employee misconduct. It has no factual basis, it's just a generic statement designed to not address the topic while seeming to contradict the point. Talk equal to equal. The example provided is what happens to government officials when they are caught AND punished. I the frequency of getting caught was never mentioned, it's something you brought up. The topic here is leniency. Do you really think a small demotion within a company is the reaction of the legal team of say, facebook, to such things? I mean imagine the Director of Marketing getting kick backs from companies he recommends to the board. And when caught, he is not fired, doesn't have to pay back anything and only suffers a 30% paycut. It is my understanding that when a large corporation has an officer unjust enriching himself by securing kick backs from companies, they engage in a civil lawsuit. This would result in an amount considerably larger than the amount received from enrichment being placed in judgement against a defendant. It would also create a discovery process which would basically mean a made case for a DA, who may and likely will prosecute. A first time offender will likely have minimal if any jail, but they would have a criminal record. The employee in question would undoubtedly lose his job and all benefits. How could you compare these two? The fact that white collar crime is unjustly lenient vs street crime has no bearing on the unjust lenience of private vs public sector employee misconduct. This reddit style 'whatabboutism' is really tiring.

sdenton4 7y ago
You seem really defensive in this conversation. So you've got a book that's convinced you that it's easy to be unethical and not get punished for it in government positions. My point is that corruption and nepotism are not a "government" problem so much as a "human institutions" problem. Whether you believe it's a human problem or a government problem has major implications for policy response: Do you reduce government function, or try to install better safeguards? My position is that it's definitely not just a government problem, and that 30 years of responding as though it WERE just a government problem has in fact just hidden the issues in the (far more opaque) private sector. I interpret "Whattaboutism" as an argument that it's OK for Group A to engage in an unethical action because Group B does as well (perhaps even while overlooking differences of scale or context). This is not my point, nor is it a position I condone.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  > My position is that it's definitely not just a government problem Sure. But no one said anything to the contrary. I said: Government employees get unjust leniency compared to private enterprise when caught in unethical behavior. I then gave an example to back up my claim (with examples and high trust references) You posted, and continue to post: "But WHAT ABOUT private sector misheavior, private sector does bad too!" And: "But WHAT ABOUT the good government employees, most are good" "But WHAT ABOUT the privatization of things that are going wrong" Which are excellent statements to be made on their own. I actually happen to agree with you, I dislike a lot of privatization that is happening. But they are a poor reply to a point that doesn't mention anything about private vs public. Whataboutism has the following pattern: Person 1 posts a fact: leniency toward government official misbehavior. Person 2 posts a fact: private enterprise is less transparent than government enterprise. The fact doesn't contradict the first directly, but it came across as a rebuttal. It's throwing true facts out there that sort of contradict a point without having to actually address the point being made or take a stance or define a clear point which could then receive a counterpoint. A counter point to be made could be: Well, I believe government employee misconduct is more easily spotted and therefore a lenient treatment might be justified. See? That's an actual counter point. I can then say: 'Well, let's look at the statistics of corruption in each and convictions and we can prove the point one way or another'. But what you posted... can never be answered in a way that furthers the finding of the truth. It is 'anti government people' vs 'pro government people'. It's tribalistic, many people here seem to have placed me in the anti government field because I posted 1 thing that reflects badly on public servants. I'm neither pro gov nor anti gov and I'd appreciate it both parties could find a place to battle it out that wasn't my point, which neither supports nor disproves either side. My point is that this (unjust sector leniency) is an issue and it should be more widely known. You are welcome to answer with a counter point. I'm pro-dialectics and will change my mind if given good points with proper references or logical constructs.

sdenton4 7y ago

You seem really defensive in this conversation. So you've got a book that's convinced you that it's easy to be unethical and not get punished for it in government positions. My point is that corruption and nepotism are not a "government" problem so much as a "human institutions" problem. Whether you believe it's a human problem or a government problem has major implications for policy response: Do you reduce government function, or try to install better safeguards? My position is that it's definitely not just a government problem, and that 30 years of responding as though it WERE just a government problem has in fact just hidden the issues in the (far more opaque) private sector. I interpret "Whattaboutism" as an argument that it's OK for Group A to engage in an unethical action because Group B does as well (perhaps even while overlooking differences of scale or context). This is not my point, nor is it a position I condone.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
> My position is that it's definitely not just a government problem Sure. But no one said anything to the contrary. I said: Government employees get unjust leniency compared to private enterprise when caught in unethical behavior. I then gave an example to back up my claim (with examples and high trust references) You posted, and continue to post: "But WHAT ABOUT private sector misheavior, private sector does bad too!" And: "But WHAT ABOUT the good government employees, most are good" "But WHAT ABOUT the privatization of things that are going wrong" Which are excellent statements to be made on their own. I actually happen to agree with you, I dislike a lot of privatization that is happening. But they are a poor reply to a point that doesn't mention anything about private vs public. Whataboutism has the following pattern: Person 1 posts a fact: leniency toward government official misbehavior. Person 2 posts a fact: private enterprise is less transparent than government enterprise. The fact doesn't contradict the first directly, but it came across as a rebuttal. It's throwing true facts out there that sort of contradict a point without having to actually address the point being made or take a stance or define a clear point which could then receive a counterpoint. A counter point to be made could be: Well, I believe government employee misconduct is more easily spotted and therefore a lenient treatment might be justified. See? That's an actual counter point. I can then say: 'Well, let's look at the statistics of corruption in each and convictions and we can prove the point one way or another'. But what you posted... can never be answered in a way that furthers the finding of the truth. It is 'anti government people' vs 'pro government people'. It's tribalistic, many people here seem to have placed me in the anti government field because I posted 1 thing that reflects badly on public servants. I'm neither pro gov nor anti gov and I'd appreciate it both parties could find a place to battle it out that wasn't my point, which neither supports nor disproves either side. My point is that this (unjust sector leniency) is an issue and it should be more widely known. You are welcome to answer with a counter point. I'm pro-dialectics and will change my mind if given good points with proper references or logical constructs.