4 ms·

You will then be horrified to learn that US intelligence has a written mandate to obtain foreign technology that the US lacks and make it available to US indust

You will then be horrified to learn that US intelligence has a written mandate to obtain foreign technology that the US lacks and make it available to US industry. A well-kept little dirty secret.

chibg10 7y ago
Source?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Classic what-about-ism. And I deeply resent you putting words in my mouth (or at least attitudes in my brain). It's a dishonest, cheap rhetorical trick. And apparently you can't see the difference between the government trying to take it by spying, and the government forcing you to give it away by contract as a condition of doing business. Hint: One you can take countermeasures against; one you can't. And, like others, I would like to see your source.
- dang 7y ago
  Please keep the whataboutism cliché off HN (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862258 for more). Also, please keep deep resentment off HN. If that's how you're feeling, find some other way to process it before returning to comment here. (Edit: I know that's not easy, but it's necessary for this place to not burn.)
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    What I'm trying to fight is this trope: "If you are in favor of A, then you must also favor X", where X is something almost-but-not-quite-completely different from A. (That's why I picked X instead of B.) And that's usually the end of the comment. There's no explanation of why X and A are like each other in any way that matters. There's no conclusion, like either "Since I presume you're not in favor of X, you can't consistently be in favor of A either", or the opposite, "Since you're in favor of A, you really ought to reconsider your position on X". What there is, though, is what feels to me like an attempt to put words in the other person's mouth. This feels to me like a step beyond whataboutism. It's not just "what about X", it's "You must also agree that X is true". I've been seeing this pattern increasingly over the last 6 to 12 months. (Alternately, I've become more sensitive to this pattern in the same time.) I consider it to be... let's just say it's not a positive contribution to the discussion. So: How should one respond to this? Flag every instance? Ignore? Simply respond "Non sequitur" and leave it at that? You don't like how I responded. Fine; you have the right. But what do you think I should do instead?
    - dang 7y ago
      I'll give you two answers, one specific and one general. The specific answer: your post above already contained a good reply. The trouble was that it also broke the site guidelines. One can turn it into a good comment by editing those bits out. If I do that, this is what I get: There's a difference between the government trying to take it by spying, and the government forcing you to give it away by contract as a condition of doing business. One you can take countermeasures against; one you can't. That cuts not only the first two paragraphs, but also the flamey bits from the third ("Apparently you can't see" and "Hint:"). Doing all that yields a substantive, respectful reply. (I'm not considering whether it's a good argument here—just whether it's offside or not.) And of course it's fine to ask politely for the other person's source, or how they know what they claim. The general answer: one good way to reply to a comment of the form "If you are in favor of A, then you must also favor X" is to mention significant difference(s) between A and X that show why A doesn't imply X. For example, something favorable in A that X lacks; or something unfavorable in X that A lacks. And to show why the difference is strong enough to break the assumed arrow from A to X. There's an aspect to this that is unfair. pinkfoot's comment was pretty lazy (opting for snark and a drive-by rather than giving the reader enough information to really establish anything). If you're going to reply to a comment like that, the temptation is also to take the path of least resistance—for example, to vent, rather than to put much thought or work into a reply. The other person didn't put much thought or work into theirs, so why should you? The answer is that you don't owe it to the other person, but to the general reader and the community. Your reply to such a comment will either raise the quality of the site or lower it. (Responding on the same level is lowering.) The two good options are: put in the thought and work to come up with a specific reply—cutting any flamey bits because by then you don't need them and they weaken your case anyhow—or, if you don't have the time and energy to do so, simply not to post.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  As requested: https://www.lawfareblog.com/precise-and-narrow-limits-us-economic-espionage https://www.lawfareblog.com/precise-and-narrow-limits-us-eco.... For your reading convenience: "… it would be consistent with this statement for the USG to steal trade secrets on behalf of U.S. firms, or to give the stolen trade secrets to U.S. firms, for some other purpose." Not really classic what-about-ism, however classic poorly-informed-ism. Of course the USA is going to "seek to craft a nuanced rule about economic espionage that serves its interests." Its the same policy and morals - just that up to now their wasn't much tech to steal from China or Zimbabwe.

You will then be horrified to learn that US intelligence has a written mandate to obtain foreign technology that the US lacks and make it available to US industry. A well-kept little dirty secret.

chibg10 7y ago

Source?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Classic what-about-ism. And I deeply resent you putting words in my mouth (or at least attitudes in my brain). It's a dishonest, cheap rhetorical trick. And apparently you can't see the difference between the government trying to take it by spying, and the government forcing you to give it away by contract as a condition of doing business. Hint: One you can take countermeasures against; one you can't. And, like others, I would like to see your source.

dang 7y ago
Please keep the whataboutism cliché off HN (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862258 for more). Also, please keep deep resentment off HN. If that's how you're feeling, find some other way to process it before returning to comment here. (Edit: I know that's not easy, but it's necessary for this place to not burn.)
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  What I'm trying to fight is this trope: "If you are in favor of A, then you must also favor X", where X is something almost-but-not-quite-completely different from A. (That's why I picked X instead of B.) And that's usually the end of the comment. There's no explanation of why X and A are like each other in any way that matters. There's no conclusion, like either "Since I presume you're not in favor of X, you can't consistently be in favor of A either", or the opposite, "Since you're in favor of A, you really ought to reconsider your position on X". What there is, though, is what feels to me like an attempt to put words in the other person's mouth. This feels to me like a step beyond whataboutism. It's not just "what about X", it's "You must also agree that X is true". I've been seeing this pattern increasingly over the last 6 to 12 months. (Alternately, I've become more sensitive to this pattern in the same time.) I consider it to be... let's just say it's not a positive contribution to the discussion. So: How should one respond to this? Flag every instance? Ignore? Simply respond "Non sequitur" and leave it at that? You don't like how I responded. Fine; you have the right. But what do you think I should do instead?
  - dang 7y ago
    I'll give you two answers, one specific and one general. The specific answer: your post above already contained a good reply. The trouble was that it also broke the site guidelines. One can turn it into a good comment by editing those bits out. If I do that, this is what I get: There's a difference between the government trying to take it by spying, and the government forcing you to give it away by contract as a condition of doing business. One you can take countermeasures against; one you can't. That cuts not only the first two paragraphs, but also the flamey bits from the third ("Apparently you can't see" and "Hint:"). Doing all that yields a substantive, respectful reply. (I'm not considering whether it's a good argument here—just whether it's offside or not.) And of course it's fine to ask politely for the other person's source, or how they know what they claim. The general answer: one good way to reply to a comment of the form "If you are in favor of A, then you must also favor X" is to mention significant difference(s) between A and X that show why A doesn't imply X. For example, something favorable in A that X lacks; or something unfavorable in X that A lacks. And to show why the difference is strong enough to break the assumed arrow from A to X. There's an aspect to this that is unfair. pinkfoot's comment was pretty lazy (opting for snark and a drive-by rather than giving the reader enough information to really establish anything). If you're going to reply to a comment like that, the temptation is also to take the path of least resistance—for example, to vent, rather than to put much thought or work into a reply. The other person didn't put much thought or work into theirs, so why should you? The answer is that you don't owe it to the other person, but to the general reader and the community. Your reply to such a comment will either raise the quality of the site or lower it. (Responding on the same level is lowering.) The two good options are: put in the thought and work to come up with a specific reply—cutting any flamey bits because by then you don't need them and they weaken your case anyhow—or, if you don't have the time and energy to do so, simply not to post.
pinkfoot 7y ago
As requested: https://www.lawfareblog.com/precise-and-narrow-limits-us-economic-espionage https://www.lawfareblog.com/precise-and-narrow-limits-us-eco.... For your reading convenience: "… it would be consistent with this statement for the USG to steal trade secrets on behalf of U.S. firms, or to give the stolen trade secrets to U.S. firms, for some other purpose." Not really classic what-about-ism, however classic poorly-informed-ism. Of course the USA is going to "seek to craft a nuanced rule about economic espionage that serves its interests." Its the same policy and morals - just that up to now their wasn't much tech to steal from China or Zimbabwe.