3 ms·

Sure, but this clear whataboutism? But also inexplicable whataboutism?

• dotancohen 2y ago
  I think that his point was, if you want to fight against sanctioned stealing then there is a more effective target to attack.
  • kristjansson 2y ago
    Larger, sure, but it's not obvious to me the resources would be better spent on labor law violations than on egregious forfeitures? They're both pretty piecemeal, small-dollar fights that in aggregate take billions of dollars each out of people's pockets. Mostly I was shocked/amused at the juxtaposition of apparent opinions. "Cops are abusing people? Well what about about the employers abusing people?" is just a weird stance to take?
    • dotancohen 2y ago
      > Mostly I was shocked/amused at the juxtaposition of apparent opinions. "Cops are abusing people? Well what about about the employers abusing people?" is just a weird stance to take? Possibly. But focusing on a small target yet ignoring a large target then complaining "whataboutism" is a common tactic when harming the target, not the started goal, is the motive for action. Though in this case I don't suspect that your motive is to harm the police, your grey comment suggests that enough other people do.
      • kristjansson 2y ago
        Wage theft and civil forfeiture are both bad! And not so disproportionately so either, like $15b/yr to $3-7bn/yr. Which is why it’s so funny/weird/disingenuous to reply to “forfeiture should be illegal” with “wage theft is worse”. Why bring it up?
• 93po 2y ago
  i agree, i was just being conversational