8 ms·

Regarding analogy: one way to look at things is that courts embrace whataboutism. In Internet discussions, people tend to invoke whataboutism to dismiss compari

Regarding analogy: one way to look at things is that courts embrace whataboutism. In Internet discussions, people tend to invoke whataboutism to dismiss comparisons with other situations, but the legal world actively compares with other situations in order to derive a judgement.

WJW 5y ago
I think it is important to note in this regard that in internet discussion, the parties involved are often debating not only facts but also morality. This is fine, because people on the internet are their own beings and not institutions of democratic government with a formal separation of power. A judge is explicitly not tasked with what the law "should" be, as that is the role of the lawmaking parts of government. The place of a judge is to measure the facts against the law as fairly as possible. One of the founding principles of legal thinking is that equal acts should be judged equally, and one of the ways to maintain equal laws for equal citizens is through jurisdiction. If you did some action XYZ and it is not immediately clear whether you violated the law or not, "but other citizen ABC did the same thing back in 1976 and then the judge ruled that it did not violate the law" should be valid reasoning for the defending lawyer.
lukeschlather 5y ago
In a legal context I think whataboutism would be bringing up an example of someone who committed a similar crime but was not charged as evidence that someone should be acquitted. There's nothing wrong with analogy, it's when you bring up someone who might be guilty of malfeasance to excuse another instance of seeming malfeasance that it's whataboutism. It's not whataboutism when you bring up someone who did the same thing and was demonstrated not to have done anything wrong, which is what courts do.
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  Correct. But that's not how whataboutism is often actually used in practice in Internet discussions. Many people often invoke whataboutism to reject any kind of comparison. Especially in political discussions, whataboutism is often invoked to excuse double standards.
netcan 5y ago
Well here's my insight of the day! Thanks Foo, this was the phrasing I was looking for. Courts embrace whataboutism officially, as legal doctrine. Precedents, common law and such. But beyond courts, I think the avoidance of naked decisions is also pretty prevalent. In fact, negating the existence of a choice at all is a pretty modern way of arguing. "Evidence based" policies, business practices and such is a part of this. It's the evidence that made the decision, or past decisions, or something.

WJW 5y ago

I think it is important to note in this regard that in internet discussion, the parties involved are often debating not only facts but also morality. This is fine, because people on the internet are their own beings and not institutions of democratic government with a formal separation of power. A judge is explicitly not tasked with what the law "should" be, as that is the role of the lawmaking parts of government. The place of a judge is to measure the facts against the law as fairly as possible. One of the founding principles of legal thinking is that equal acts should be judged equally, and one of the ways to maintain equal laws for equal citizens is through jurisdiction. If you did some action XYZ and it is not immediately clear whether you violated the law or not, "but other citizen ABC did the same thing back in 1976 and then the judge ruled that it did not violate the law" should be valid reasoning for the defending lawyer.

lukeschlather 5y ago

In a legal context I think whataboutism would be bringing up an example of someone who committed a similar crime but was not charged as evidence that someone should be acquitted. There's nothing wrong with analogy, it's when you bring up someone who might be guilty of malfeasance to excuse another instance of seeming malfeasance that it's whataboutism. It's not whataboutism when you bring up someone who did the same thing and was demonstrated not to have done anything wrong, which is what courts do.

FooBarWidget 5y ago
Correct. But that's not how whataboutism is often actually used in practice in Internet discussions. Many people often invoke whataboutism to reject any kind of comparison. Especially in political discussions, whataboutism is often invoked to excuse double standards.

netcan 5y ago

Well here's my insight of the day! Thanks Foo, this was the phrasing I was looking for. Courts embrace whataboutism officially, as legal doctrine. Precedents, common law and such. But beyond courts, I think the avoidance of naked decisions is also pretty prevalent. In fact, negating the existence of a choice at all is a pretty modern way of arguing. "Evidence based" policies, business practices and such is a part of this. It's the evidence that made the decision, or past decisions, or something.