3 ms·

I think the charge of 'whataboutism' is often a bit of a strawman. The argument is rarely, 'ignore Y because of X' or similar. Rather its 'if were were to appl

I think the charge of 'whataboutism' is often a bit of a strawman. The argument is rarely, 'ignore Y because of X' or similar. Rather its 'if were were to apply this standard correctly, we would have other priorities'. So here that if we were to apply the 'regulate/remove objects which change the social environment to make it less safe' standard to prioritise our concern, I'd imagine find-my-device systems wouldnt rank highly: indeed, we might find these systems make it more safe. So, in a complex series of tradeoffs where all actions have a cost (time, effort, etc.) the claim is about where one ought pay that cost. I think its fine to show that the standards people have lead to contradictions.

gretch 3y ago
I think this happens all the time as a form of societal procrastination. Like in a city where homelessness is rampant, and the city government meets up and the first thing they talk about is littering ordinances or if there's enough sun/shade in the park, and then oops, all out of time to talk about homelessness - let's just put that on the agenda for next time right after we talk about changing trash pickup day.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  That's true -- but sometimes people are being accused of that when they arent doing it. To say, eg., "my country did X too!" when "Country B did X" could be whataboutism, or it could be pointing to an international game with its own rules that all players are complicit in -- such an observation is a kind of rebuke to moralism. Here we can read this sort of reply to those who worry about airtags in a similar sort of way: what, exactly does the principle, "limit objects which make a social environment less safe" do if applied mechanically -- rather than as a sort of circumstantial moralism about some recent headline. Perhaps often, then, whataboutism is really a kind of distaste for hastey moralism about circumstantial matters
Krasnol 3y ago
I don't understand. How would regulating guns make tracking less problematic? It's still a problem in societies which have gun regulations. You can murder someone without a gun, too. Stalking is there without guns too. Let's just face the obvious: bringing up a huge and dramatic topic like gun regulation makes the issue which is the topic here look less dramatic. This is it. There isn't more to it. The argument makes no other senese here.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  I read the argument as more like, Alice has lost her pen that may have no ink in it. Alice has also lost her bank card. Alice has just spend hours searching for her pen. What does this say about Alice? It says alice gets swept up in solving "problems" that arent even clearly problems (does she need a pen without ink?) all the while not even basically engaged in real problems. Here: do airtags make society less safe, or more safe? Does it, eg., supress theft? Does it enable more criminals who would go on to other commit crimes to be caught early? (And so on..) In other words what does our being hastily swept up in one downside of one piece of technology tell us? Now, if you think airtags are serious threats to social saftey, the above doenst apply. But I dont read the guns point as procrasting whataboutism -- rather I read it as a claim that airtags are pens-without-ink and this is obvious when contrasted with a more actually pressing matter. I read it as a claim that we're being sweptup in moralising about a non-moral problem
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    But it's not just Alice looking here. You can fix both problems at the same time. If you consider arguments by certain groups advocating for the fix of the problem, they aren't even the same groups.

gretch 3y ago

I think this happens all the time as a form of societal procrastination. Like in a city where homelessness is rampant, and the city government meets up and the first thing they talk about is littering ordinances or if there's enough sun/shade in the park, and then oops, all out of time to talk about homelessness - let's just put that on the agenda for next time right after we talk about changing trash pickup day.

mjburgess 3y ago
That's true -- but sometimes people are being accused of that when they arent doing it. To say, eg., "my country did X too!" when "Country B did X" could be whataboutism, or it could be pointing to an international game with its own rules that all players are complicit in -- such an observation is a kind of rebuke to moralism. Here we can read this sort of reply to those who worry about airtags in a similar sort of way: what, exactly does the principle, "limit objects which make a social environment less safe" do if applied mechanically -- rather than as a sort of circumstantial moralism about some recent headline. Perhaps often, then, whataboutism is really a kind of distaste for hastey moralism about circumstantial matters

Krasnol 3y ago

I don't understand. How would regulating guns make tracking less problematic? It's still a problem in societies which have gun regulations. You can murder someone without a gun, too. Stalking is there without guns too. Let's just face the obvious: bringing up a huge and dramatic topic like gun regulation makes the issue which is the topic here look less dramatic. This is it. There isn't more to it. The argument makes no other senese here.

mjburgess 3y ago
I read the argument as more like, Alice has lost her pen that may have no ink in it. Alice has also lost her bank card. Alice has just spend hours searching for her pen. What does this say about Alice? It says alice gets swept up in solving "problems" that arent even clearly problems (does she need a pen without ink?) all the while not even basically engaged in real problems. Here: do airtags make society less safe, or more safe? Does it, eg., supress theft? Does it enable more criminals who would go on to other commit crimes to be caught early? (And so on..) In other words what does our being hastily swept up in one downside of one piece of technology tell us? Now, if you think airtags are serious threats to social saftey, the above doenst apply. But I dont read the guns point as procrasting whataboutism -- rather I read it as a claim that airtags are pens-without-ink and this is obvious when contrasted with a more actually pressing matter. I read it as a claim that we're being sweptup in moralising about a non-moral problem
- Krasnol 3y ago
  But it's not just Alice looking here. You can fix both problems at the same time. If you consider arguments by certain groups advocating for the fix of the problem, they aren't even the same groups.