5 ms·

Yeah, because US haven’t been ripping off anybody. And no US company has ever had close ties to the government %]

by bronlund 7y ago

jorblumesea 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- bronlund 7y ago
  What do you think all your wars are about? Democracy :D
- ryacko 7y ago
  No one is required to recite a short history on why the entire world is terrible to comment on a single instance of wrong doing.
  - bronlund 7y ago
    If you are defending the biggest asshole of them all, you kind of are. China is like a zen buddhist temple compared to the shitstorm US has brought to this planet.
    - ryacko 7y ago
      No. It is the British Empire. The Saudis wouldn't even be in power if it weren't for the British endorsing them after the First World War.
      - bronlund 7y ago
        Hard to argue that, but US is the new UK in my opinion.
        ryacko 7y ago
        No, read this, but I doubt it would convince you and may only fall on deaf ears. https://spartacus-educational.com/SPYbsc.htm https://spartacus-educational.com/SPYbsc.htm >Roald Dahl was assigned to work with Drew Pearson, one of America's most influential journalist as the time. "Dahl described his main function with BSC as that of trying to 'oil the wheels' that often ground imperfectly between the British and American war efforts. Much of this involved dealing with journalists, something at which he was already skilled. His chief contact was the mustachioed political gossip columnist Drew Pearson, whose column, Washington Merry-Go-Round, was widely regarded as the most important of its kind in the United States."
- knzhou 7y ago
  Whataboutism is bad when it's responding to a statement that "X is bad". But it is the exact correct response to a statement that "X is uniquely bad". People like you forget this obvious distinction and just use it as a general insult to shut down conversation.
  - bronlund 7y ago
    Thank you :)
- dang 7y ago
  Please keep canned arguments like "whataboutism" off HN. They're repetitive and never lead anywhere new or interesting. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20whataboutism&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
  - jorblumesea 7y ago
    I think it's a pretty fair rebuttal. tu quoque is a logical fallacy and is often seen whenever these debates happen.
    - dang 7y ago
      If someone introduces a counterexample that they believe is comparable, calling "whataboutism" doesn't refute anything. It's a move to exclude the information, and ultimately to stop discussion. What, after all, can one say in response? It isn't an argument—it's a label that is intended to stigmatize. This verbal trick is so empty that it's surprising it has currency among smart people. I think it's because the word itself is so catchy. When someone brings up information isn't in fact comparable or relevant, the reasonable thing to do is to explain why it isn't, and give the other person a chance to respond. It's natural for people to disagree about what's relevant in an argument—that's part of having a disagreement in the first place. Trying to close off discussion so only your side's examples count as admissible isn't good discourse. Being first to raise a topic doesn't confer power to control the conversation. Perhaps the more helpful broader point, though, is that all these canned arguments are repetitive and therefore low-quality. They're like slapping a sticker on something rather than engaging with it. Because of that, they make threads worse and more predictable. People tend to respond badly and strike back, rather than continuing in good faith—and it's easy to see why, because labels like "whataboutism" express dismissiveness.
dnautics 7y ago
The great thing is both of you are right. Now the rest of the world at least has a choice. (I still pick the us because their government is too caught up in stupid things to care about me)

Yeah, because US haven’t been ripping off anybody. And no US company has ever had close ties to the government %]

jorblumesea 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

bronlund 7y ago
What do you think all your wars are about? Democracy :D
ryacko 7y ago
No one is required to recite a short history on why the entire world is terrible to comment on a single instance of wrong doing.
- bronlund 7y ago
  If you are defending the biggest asshole of them all, you kind of are. China is like a zen buddhist temple compared to the shitstorm US has brought to this planet.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    No. It is the British Empire. The Saudis wouldn't even be in power if it weren't for the British endorsing them after the First World War.
    - bronlund 7y ago
      Hard to argue that, but US is the new UK in my opinion.
      - ryacko 7y ago
        No, read this, but I doubt it would convince you and may only fall on deaf ears. https://spartacus-educational.com/SPYbsc.htm https://spartacus-educational.com/SPYbsc.htm >Roald Dahl was assigned to work with Drew Pearson, one of America's most influential journalist as the time. "Dahl described his main function with BSC as that of trying to 'oil the wheels' that often ground imperfectly between the British and American war efforts. Much of this involved dealing with journalists, something at which he was already skilled. His chief contact was the mustachioed political gossip columnist Drew Pearson, whose column, Washington Merry-Go-Round, was widely regarded as the most important of its kind in the United States."
knzhou 7y ago
Whataboutism is bad when it's responding to a statement that "X is bad". But it is the exact correct response to a statement that "X is uniquely bad". People like you forget this obvious distinction and just use it as a general insult to shut down conversation.
- bronlund 7y ago
  Thank you :)
dang 7y ago
Please keep canned arguments like "whataboutism" off HN. They're repetitive and never lead anywhere new or interesting. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20whataboutism&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  I think it's a pretty fair rebuttal. tu quoque is a logical fallacy and is often seen whenever these debates happen.
  - dang 7y ago
    If someone introduces a counterexample that they believe is comparable, calling "whataboutism" doesn't refute anything. It's a move to exclude the information, and ultimately to stop discussion. What, after all, can one say in response? It isn't an argument—it's a label that is intended to stigmatize. This verbal trick is so empty that it's surprising it has currency among smart people. I think it's because the word itself is so catchy. When someone brings up information isn't in fact comparable or relevant, the reasonable thing to do is to explain why it isn't, and give the other person a chance to respond. It's natural for people to disagree about what's relevant in an argument—that's part of having a disagreement in the first place. Trying to close off discussion so only your side's examples count as admissible isn't good discourse. Being first to raise a topic doesn't confer power to control the conversation. Perhaps the more helpful broader point, though, is that all these canned arguments are repetitive and therefore low-quality. They're like slapping a sticker on something rather than engaging with it. Because of that, they make threads worse and more predictable. People tend to respond badly and strike back, rather than continuing in good faith—and it's easy to see why, because labels like "whataboutism" express dismissiveness.

dnautics 7y ago

The great thing is both of you are right. Now the rest of the world at least has a choice. (I still pick the us because their government is too caught up in stupid things to care about me)