17 ms·

This whataboutism is pointless. It is not their duty to refer to each and every issue in the world. It is their right however to express the view for whatever t

by dagmx 4y ago

This whataboutism is pointless. It is not their duty to refer to each and every issue in the world. It is their right however to express the view for whatever they choose. Why read further into it? They never said they don’t care about those other things. It is possible for humans to mention a specific cause without also negating all others. Seriously, what is wrong with the logical reasoning of some people?

encryptluks2 4y ago
Maybe because selectively caring about specific issues while ignoring others is a form of political bias. I know people love to shout whataboutism whenever someone points out legitimate hypocrisy rather than confront the hypocrisy.
- dagmx 4y ago
  Where’s the hypocrisy? You’re projecting that they don’t care about the other causes. That’s your own fault not theirs. Maybe they have some women on their team who are particularly moved by this event? Maybe they have some Iranian expats? Maybe they’re unaware of the extent of other issues? Maybe it doesn’t matter because again , saying one supports a specific cause doesn’t mean they don’t support others. There is zero hypocrisy here. There are only logical fallacies from people reading too far into things.
- e12e 4y ago
  > Maybe because selectively caring about specific issues while ignoring others is a form of political bias. There's generally three options when it comes to politics; do nothing, do something, do everything. The first does not help anyone, and the last; being impossible - is a path back to the first (via burn-out, apathy or simply inefficiency ("scope creep"). So the only real option is to do "something" - and champion a few causes.
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    Preventing some abuses can be worse than nothing. Imagine the following. Your friend Adam hits Bob. You do nothing. Bob tries to hit back but you grab his arms so he can't. Adam hits Bob. You do nothing. Bob still can't hit back because you are preventing him. Another possibility: A Corp in which you are a stockholder is polluting the environment. You do nothing. B Inc pollutes the environment but not as much. You step in to stop them which causes B to lose out on a lot of profit. A Corp outcompetes B Inc. You become rich. Do I think we are being overly harsh on Iran? No. Should we consider the possibility and try to avoid it? Yes. Should we be suspicious of other people that are biased in what they enforce? Yes.
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      I think it's clear these are really contrived examples built explicitly to prove an exception to the rule. In the real world, doing something is typically better than doing nothing. You are walking in the park and see a woman being dragged into a bush to be assaulted. Do you intervene? By doing so are you stopping all assaults against women? No, but invariably people would still say you've done more good by doing something than by doing nothing. The protestors in Iran haven't hit Bob their government, you're not restraining an equally aggrieved party by backing them against their regime. They're if anything the long term victims of Bob's habitual violence and they're finally seeking to break free, not to hurt Bob, but to be free from being hurt themselves. A child is starving to death in Sudan. Do you feed them or do nothing? Does feeding them feed all the children? Does feeding none of the children make the world a better place than feeding one? If you were that child, or their parents watching them die in their arms, would you hope people would step away from their completely detached hypotheticals and actually do something to save a life when they could? Etc etc
- pessimizer 4y ago
  When you listen to people who are pointing out that you are a hypocrite, you are platforming hateful abusers and possible Putin propagandists. Listening to negativity is platforming hate.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    So now people that believe Saudi Arabia and other countries should be held accountable for human rights violations are Putin apologists? What does this have to do with Iran specifically?
spoiler 4y ago
I could be wrong, but I think people get irked by shallow virtue signaling, especially when it's combined with superficial thoughts-and-prayers type of aid/advice, more than the the choice of political issues. Although, I suppose recent political issues that everyone's already talking about, and a project tries to "raise awareness" reeks of a misguided virtue signaling PR stunt than when one talks about long-standing issues. Not saying this is the case here, though, as Rust is hardly something that needs PR. I'm sure part of the reaction is that Twitter is full of this type of virtue signaling, and people have become allergic to it. I remember the whole "Yeah, this little master->main change will be a tectonic shift. Back pats all around! We did it people; we solved racism!" attitude that Twitter had during the main/master debate lol. Yes, make changes in what is probably the most progressive industry (since we nerds are generally more tolerant/progressive), like that's gonna make a difference in the morally decrepit police force, which the protests were about to begin with. Anyway... I'm not sure what the word is, but I feel it's a next door neighbour to hypocrisy? And hypocrites annoying everyone. Personally though, I think it's always good to talk about human rights or mental health issues! I'm not sure a paragraph everyone will skip is an adequate place for that, but it's a nice token effort, and it's somewhat commendable someone cared enough to put it in. Anyway, this is all a bit incoherent, but I don't care enough to wordsmith the comment, only to share some of my opinions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chowells 4y ago
  Perhaps it isn't virtue signaling? What if... they actually care, like a human being would?
  - spoiler 4y ago
    Ok, I belive they do on some superficial level. I mean, people virtue signal about things they care, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. If they actually cared, why not try and do something meaningful about it[1]? When I cared about issues, I put effort into trying to change things a even on a meager/local scale. As a teen I volunteered at a library to teach children how to behave online. Later I helped refurbish a homelessness shelter in my home town. I've taught programming at an LGBT community centre. Maybe I've done these for selfish reasons because they are things that personally affected my own past/development, and doing them made me feel good and significant. These are all small things, but at least I hope I've made a difference to a small number of people. So, in my books a tweet or a driveby paragraph in release notes doesn't really make a difference. Tell me, how did GitHub help make black people feel more comfortable on the streets of America? How did these release notes help people's rights in Iran? [1]: Also, to be fair, I don't know who put that paragraph in. Maybe they did do meaningfully contribute (i.e. by setting up VPN networks or something), and maybe I'm being unnecessarily harsh. But in my limited experience, the people who preach the loudest do the least, but also herald of their preaches and coat themselves with efforts of others. Sadly

by dagmx 4y ago

encryptluks2 4y ago

Maybe because selectively caring about specific issues while ignoring others is a form of political bias. I know people love to shout whataboutism whenever someone points out legitimate hypocrisy rather than confront the hypocrisy.

dagmx 4y ago
Where’s the hypocrisy? You’re projecting that they don’t care about the other causes. That’s your own fault not theirs. Maybe they have some women on their team who are particularly moved by this event? Maybe they have some Iranian expats? Maybe they’re unaware of the extent of other issues? Maybe it doesn’t matter because again , saying one supports a specific cause doesn’t mean they don’t support others. There is zero hypocrisy here. There are only logical fallacies from people reading too far into things.
e12e 4y ago
> Maybe because selectively caring about specific issues while ignoring others is a form of political bias. There's generally three options when it comes to politics; do nothing, do something, do everything. The first does not help anyone, and the last; being impossible - is a path back to the first (via burn-out, apathy or simply inefficiency ("scope creep"). So the only real option is to do "something" - and champion a few causes.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  Preventing some abuses can be worse than nothing. Imagine the following. Your friend Adam hits Bob. You do nothing. Bob tries to hit back but you grab his arms so he can't. Adam hits Bob. You do nothing. Bob still can't hit back because you are preventing him. Another possibility: A Corp in which you are a stockholder is polluting the environment. You do nothing. B Inc pollutes the environment but not as much. You step in to stop them which causes B to lose out on a lot of profit. A Corp outcompetes B Inc. You become rich. Do I think we are being overly harsh on Iran? No. Should we consider the possibility and try to avoid it? Yes. Should we be suspicious of other people that are biased in what they enforce? Yes.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    I think it's clear these are really contrived examples built explicitly to prove an exception to the rule. In the real world, doing something is typically better than doing nothing. You are walking in the park and see a woman being dragged into a bush to be assaulted. Do you intervene? By doing so are you stopping all assaults against women? No, but invariably people would still say you've done more good by doing something than by doing nothing. The protestors in Iran haven't hit Bob their government, you're not restraining an equally aggrieved party by backing them against their regime. They're if anything the long term victims of Bob's habitual violence and they're finally seeking to break free, not to hurt Bob, but to be free from being hurt themselves. A child is starving to death in Sudan. Do you feed them or do nothing? Does feeding them feed all the children? Does feeding none of the children make the world a better place than feeding one? If you were that child, or their parents watching them die in their arms, would you hope people would step away from their completely detached hypotheticals and actually do something to save a life when they could? Etc etc
pessimizer 4y ago
When you listen to people who are pointing out that you are a hypocrite, you are platforming hateful abusers and possible Putin propagandists. Listening to negativity is platforming hate.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  So now people that believe Saudi Arabia and other countries should be held accountable for human rights violations are Putin apologists? What does this have to do with Iran specifically?

spoiler 4y ago

I could be wrong, but I think people get irked by shallow virtue signaling, especially when it's combined with superficial thoughts-and-prayers type of aid/advice, more than the the choice of political issues. Although, I suppose recent political issues that everyone's already talking about, and a project tries to "raise awareness" reeks of a misguided virtue signaling PR stunt than when one talks about long-standing issues. Not saying this is the case here, though, as Rust is hardly something that needs PR. I'm sure part of the reaction is that Twitter is full of this type of virtue signaling, and people have become allergic to it. I remember the whole "Yeah, this little master->main change will be a tectonic shift. Back pats all around! We did it people; we solved racism!" attitude that Twitter had during the main/master debate lol. Yes, make changes in what is probably the most progressive industry (since we nerds are generally more tolerant/progressive), like that's gonna make a difference in the morally decrepit police force, which the protests were about to begin with. Anyway... I'm not sure what the word is, but I feel it's a next door neighbour to hypocrisy? And hypocrites annoying everyone. Personally though, I think it's always good to talk about human rights or mental health issues! I'm not sure a paragraph everyone will skip is an adequate place for that, but it's a nice token effort, and it's somewhat commendable someone cared enough to put it in. Anyway, this is all a bit incoherent, but I don't care enough to wordsmith the comment, only to share some of my opinions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chowells 4y ago
Perhaps it isn't virtue signaling? What if... they actually care, like a human being would?
- spoiler 4y ago
  Ok, I belive they do on some superficial level. I mean, people virtue signal about things they care, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. If they actually cared, why not try and do something meaningful about it[1]? When I cared about issues, I put effort into trying to change things a even on a meager/local scale. As a teen I volunteered at a library to teach children how to behave online. Later I helped refurbish a homelessness shelter in my home town. I've taught programming at an LGBT community centre. Maybe I've done these for selfish reasons because they are things that personally affected my own past/development, and doing them made me feel good and significant. These are all small things, but at least I hope I've made a difference to a small number of people. So, in my books a tweet or a driveby paragraph in release notes doesn't really make a difference. Tell me, how did GitHub help make black people feel more comfortable on the streets of America? How did these release notes help people's rights in Iran? [1]: Also, to be fair, I don't know who put that paragraph in. Maybe they did do meaningfully contribute (i.e. by setting up VPN networks or something), and maybe I'm being unnecessarily harsh. But in my limited experience, the people who preach the loudest do the least, but also herald of their preaches and coat themselves with efforts of others. Sadly