8 ms·

I find it tremendously funny a bunch of tech people are fuming over "tech billionaries" all of a sudden when the previous generation of tech billionaires were a

• pyrale 3y ago
  The previous generation of tech people were also up in arms. But each generation gets disillusioned at their own pace.
• izacus 3y ago
  Whataboutism. Look it up. (Also, you might want to check on the concept of "multiple people" which may, surprisingly, hold different opinions and express them at different times or events. Noone in this world owes you consistency to other people.)
  • waihtis 3y ago
    > whataboutism incorrect, it's called hypocrisy
  • FeepingCreature 3y ago
    "Whataboutism" is a term coined by those who were annoyed at being rightly accused of hypocrisy.
    • jonathanstrange 3y ago
      The accusation of hypocrisy is generally untenable from a moral point of view unless the discussion was about the virtues and vices of that person to start with. It's just one of those modern virtue-ethical fallacies. The question of whether a standpoint is morally the right standpoint is orthogonal to questions about the personal consistency of persons who defend the standpoint. A signpost does not need to walk into the direction it points at all. Another, more general fallacy is the computation that two moral wrongs can somehow make a right. They never do. These are not moral opinions, by the way. These points are codified into law and common jurisdiction. You cannot defend yourself in court by pointing out that others have broken the law, too.
      • waihtis 3y ago
        you miss the point, the problem isn't the message in itself but signalling these from a moral high ground in a patronizing manner.
      • FeepingCreature 3y ago
        An observation of hypocrisy does not per-se invalidate the original observation, but it does expose the speaker as acting from motivated reasoning, which may put into doubt their motivations and hence their conclusions. It does not invalidate any evidence presented, but it contextualizes it by showing it to be produced by a biased and selective process. This is particularly important in political rhetoric, where framing is usually more impactful than facts.
        • jonathanstrange 3y ago
          > may put into doubt their motivations and hence their conclusions. That's literally a fallacy, too. Look, you can attempt to frame it as you like, accusing others of hypocrisy is deviating from the original argument and fallacious. It's an invalid ad hominem attack to distract from the topic. The only exception is when the accusation is that the arguer does not really mean the argument sincerely, but that's another type of argument and not under discussion here. Likewise, to re-iterate this point, two wrongs never make a right, yet in nearly all cases of blaming someone for being a hypocrite that type of fallacious argument is exactly the motivation behind the accusation. It certainly is in the above discussion.
          • FeepingCreature 3y ago
            It's only a fallacy if you're looking at the conclusion in isolation. In many cases, that a conclusion was brought to your attention implies a large amount of other conclusions that you assume to be false because they were not raised. This is the difference between "telling a technical truth" and "actually telling the truth" - when you omit observations that would contextualize a conclusion, you're using a valid argument to mislead people. So hypocrisy is not an accusation of lying by falsity but by omission. If I say "X was stealing office supplies from the breakroom" and I omit that every other employee was also stealing office supplies from the breakroom, I am lying even when X was in fact stealing. The exception implies the rule; the rule is a lie. If I speak a sentence that I know will mislead the listener, the sentence being logically true in isolation does not save me.
    • rprospero 3y ago
      Whataboutism is constantly employed by individuals more concerned about their "side" winning than concerns about actually solving problems. It is rarely a question asked in good faith, but rather a thinly veiled accusation of hypocrisy (as per your comment). That the question might have a legitimate answer is never considered. Getting to the original point: What about the previous generation of tech billionaire? I think Zuck is an awful person and I will not sign up for Threads. I also think that Musk is an awful person and I will not sign up for Twitter. Where is the hypocrisy in this stance?
      • FeepingCreature 3y ago
        I mean, the relevant comparison would be Jack Dorsey, I'd think? Ie. Twitter's previous billionaire owner.
        • rprospero 3y ago
          I apologise for misinterpreting your comment. I did delete my Twitter account under Dorsey's tenure as I became more aware of his behaviour and policies, so I believe that my point still stands.
          • FeepingCreature 3y ago
            Fair enough! But then your strongest counter isn't "you are engaging in whataboutism", but "Yeah what about Dorsey, I left under Dorsey, I act consistently." "Whataboutism" as a concept is only needed if that defense is unavailable.
• somsak2 3y ago
  what makes you say all of a sudden?
  • waihtis 3y ago
    "rocket man bad" has reached comical levels during the last 6 months
• nmrfby 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • waihtis 3y ago
    theres some truth to this. I live in an EU timezone and often see the pattern where I receive a upvotes during the day and as evening comes along theres a shower of downvotes