4 ms·

It doesn't. I am aware it's undesired. Very convenient

dang 4y ago
It looks like both you and implements took my comment as the opposite of what I actually meant, which must mean I didn't express it very clearly (although it should be clear from the past explanations I linked to). What I'm saying is that accusations of "whataboutism" are the sort of canned argument we want to avoid on HN, as well as an internet trope (which we also want to avoid), a shallow dismissal (which the site guidelines ask to avoid) and a form of name-calling (ditto). It's also a logical fallacy, since pointing out a contradiction via a comparable situation is a reasonable thing to do. No doubt people do sometimes bring up comparable situations in unhelpful, irrelevant ways, but if so, it needs to be explained how—not met with a lazy label like "whataboutism", which is a blanket that smothers a good argument just as well as a bad one.
- flangola7 4y ago
  So what steps does HN take to prevent actual whataboutism? It's a common and known disinformation campaign tactic and can't be left unaddressed.
  - dang 4y ago
    The solution is to respond to bad information with correct information and to bad arguments with good arguments. As I said, if someone makes a bad argument, then explain how it is bad. Tossing a label like "whataboutism" explains nothing, isn't an argument, and doesn't make any distinction between bad/irrelevant points and good/relevant ones. Btw, internet users are orders-of-magnitude too quick to jump to the conclusion that they're dealing with "disinformation campaigns" and that sort of thing. As far as I can tell, most of the time they're just encountering other, equally disgruntled internet users who happen to have the opposing view of a topic and feel just as strongly about it. But even if it's a sinister campaigner masquerading as a disgruntled internet user, the solution is still what I described in the previous paragraph. That's the only thing that can work in the long run. There's another, highly underrated and effective way to respond, though, and that is to simply ignore it and walk away. Responding to these things feeds them. If people would simply starve bad information/arguments of attention, they would fizzle out.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      > The solution is to respond to bad information with correct information and to bad arguments with good arguments. As I said, if someone makes a bad argument, then explain how it is bad. The firehose of bullshit makes responding to every bad argument untenable. It's a DDoS of online discussion. Making a counterargument is one strategy against toxic and harmful online content, but it's not the only one and not always an effective or appropriate one. >That's the only thing that can work in the long run. The only thing that works in the long run is removing and banning those who engage (knowingly or otherwise) in disinformation distribution. > There's another, highly underrated and effective way to respond, though, and that is to simply ignore it and walk away. Responding to these things feeds them. This is demonstrably false. As a particularly bad example, Rwanda learned this one the hard way. Russia wants Ukraine to lose popular support - if that happens many more innocent people will die than would otherwise. Ignoring the guy on the radio who tries to make others question you and wants to cause you harm will not prevent the machete from slicing you open. >If people would simply starve bad information/arguments of attention, they would fizzle out. They get even less attention when the material is removed and the user reasonable prevented from spreading more of it. This isn't high school debate club, it's a nation-state that wants to kill its neighbor's civilians. People highlight instances of whataboutism to inform others and to point it out to moderators. Punishing them for doing that is clearly the objectively wrong thing to do.
- beebeepka 4y ago
  Oh, that makes sense. I believe I owe you an apology. For better or worse, life has taught me to presume malice when interacting with humans. Yes, I am aware what the guidelines say about this.
implements 4y ago
Perhaps this will help: Whataboutism […] denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque [1] pattern, which is a subtype of the ad-hominem [2] argument. [1] Attacking the arguer for hypocrisy. [2] Attacking the arguer rather than the argument. If you find yourself accused of whataboutism it tends to mean you’re engaged in political rhetoric rather than intelligent focussed debate - which is fine, but not (as far as I understand it) what HNs is for.

dang 4y ago

It looks like both you and implements took my comment as the opposite of what I actually meant, which must mean I didn't express it very clearly (although it should be clear from the past explanations I linked to). What I'm saying is that accusations of "whataboutism" are the sort of canned argument we want to avoid on HN, as well as an internet trope (which we also want to avoid), a shallow dismissal (which the site guidelines ask to avoid) and a form of name-calling (ditto). It's also a logical fallacy, since pointing out a contradiction via a comparable situation is a reasonable thing to do. No doubt people do sometimes bring up comparable situations in unhelpful, irrelevant ways, but if so, it needs to be explained how—not met with a lazy label like "whataboutism", which is a blanket that smothers a good argument just as well as a bad one.

flangola7 4y ago
So what steps does HN take to prevent actual whataboutism? It's a common and known disinformation campaign tactic and can't be left unaddressed.
- dang 4y ago
  The solution is to respond to bad information with correct information and to bad arguments with good arguments. As I said, if someone makes a bad argument, then explain how it is bad. Tossing a label like "whataboutism" explains nothing, isn't an argument, and doesn't make any distinction between bad/irrelevant points and good/relevant ones. Btw, internet users are orders-of-magnitude too quick to jump to the conclusion that they're dealing with "disinformation campaigns" and that sort of thing. As far as I can tell, most of the time they're just encountering other, equally disgruntled internet users who happen to have the opposing view of a topic and feel just as strongly about it. But even if it's a sinister campaigner masquerading as a disgruntled internet user, the solution is still what I described in the previous paragraph. That's the only thing that can work in the long run. There's another, highly underrated and effective way to respond, though, and that is to simply ignore it and walk away. Responding to these things feeds them. If people would simply starve bad information/arguments of attention, they would fizzle out.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    > The solution is to respond to bad information with correct information and to bad arguments with good arguments. As I said, if someone makes a bad argument, then explain how it is bad. The firehose of bullshit makes responding to every bad argument untenable. It's a DDoS of online discussion. Making a counterargument is one strategy against toxic and harmful online content, but it's not the only one and not always an effective or appropriate one. >That's the only thing that can work in the long run. The only thing that works in the long run is removing and banning those who engage (knowingly or otherwise) in disinformation distribution. > There's another, highly underrated and effective way to respond, though, and that is to simply ignore it and walk away. Responding to these things feeds them. This is demonstrably false. As a particularly bad example, Rwanda learned this one the hard way. Russia wants Ukraine to lose popular support - if that happens many more innocent people will die than would otherwise. Ignoring the guy on the radio who tries to make others question you and wants to cause you harm will not prevent the machete from slicing you open. >If people would simply starve bad information/arguments of attention, they would fizzle out. They get even less attention when the material is removed and the user reasonable prevented from spreading more of it. This isn't high school debate club, it's a nation-state that wants to kill its neighbor's civilians. People highlight instances of whataboutism to inform others and to point it out to moderators. Punishing them for doing that is clearly the objectively wrong thing to do.
beebeepka 4y ago
Oh, that makes sense. I believe I owe you an apology. For better or worse, life has taught me to presume malice when interacting with humans. Yes, I am aware what the guidelines say about this.

implements 4y ago

Perhaps this will help: Whataboutism […] denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque [1] pattern, which is a subtype of the ad-hominem [2] argument. [1] Attacking the arguer for hypocrisy. [2] Attacking the arguer rather than the argument. If you find yourself accused of whataboutism it tends to mean you’re engaged in political rhetoric rather than intelligent focussed debate - which is fine, but not (as far as I understand it) what HNs is for.