6 ms·

That wasn't whataboutism

dullcrisp 2y ago
Well it’s certainly hard to tell sometimes. People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Russia: Other countries do bad things too!™
- wruza 2y ago
  How would you comment on that? What would change if ggp wasn’t (allegedly) russian? Your comment reads like “whatever, shut tf up” and nothing else. What you expect from that?
  - dullcrisp 2y ago
    I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. That wasn’t my point. I’m saying it’s a Russian talking point and a silly one. You can’t justify everything bad you ever do by bringing up the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Trust me I’ve tried.
    - wruza 2y ago
      I don’t think that that commenter tried to justify bad things, they only brought up a seemingly skewed perception of different nations by users of this forum. The fact that you see it as a sort of justification alone should be thought inducing. They simply added a contrast to what OP was already talking about in a delicate way, which was for reasons similar to those that generated this whole subthread.
      - keybored 2y ago
        Exactly. They interpreted the message backwards. Instead of: 1. This other empire/country invades countries (BAD). It would be weird for them to philosophize about “a philosophy for hard times”—that’s like a cold-blooded murderer trying to find a philosophy for the mental anguish that killing causes him, for those “hard times” (okay we’re two similes/metaphors down here maybe time to stop) 2. Likewise people shouldn’t be surprised and react with negativity[1] when someone points out that this empire/country does it (America) Instead they seem to have interpreted in this backwards, roundabout way: 1. We’re talking about America and the military 2. The main topic is not even how the military kills people, btw (that’s just the backdrop) 3. Russia enters out of left-field: Hey America invades countries so therefore it’s okay that Russia did it! Quite bizzare. [1] When I replied that reply was downvoted and at the bottom of the thread
        dullcrisp 2y ago
        Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I’ll take the explanation though.
        wruza 2y ago
        It cuts both ways in you. You read both things when one was written, for an internal reason. That’s an important distinction. Otherwise there would be no way to say one thing without implying another. Human speech can generate lots of collateral associations, but all of them live in the mind of a listener. “Assume good faith”. A good writer predicts and suppresses associations in advance, but it’s not always feasible. The main issue itt is that skewed associations are its own topic.
        dullcrisp 2y ago
        In me and anyone else exposed to Russian propaganda, which is probably just about everyone. But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.
        keybored 2y ago
        > But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Wrong on two counts. 1. These kinds of comparisons hone in on the thing the two things have in common. Invading places. This goes back to my “salient commonality” point. Which you rejected. But now you’re back to claiming that a comparison makes things equal. They don’t. They show that two things have two specific things in common. 2. “You’re saying both those things”, referring to my second thing “it’s okay that Russia did it!” (the wrong interpretation). Somehow you’ve gone from “these two things are just as bad” (covered by (1)) to “therefore Russia doing it is okay”. I still can’t make sense of that. > Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps. Dressing it up in fancy language doesn’t make it true.
    - keybored 2y ago
      > I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. Have you stopped beating your wife? I don’t care if you’re a wifebeater, no judgement. I’m just randomly curious. Saying that someone is both a Russian and pro-Invasion (by your faulty interpretation) has a well-deserved stigma.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Some people have a weird thinking style whereby they think broader context and perspectives upon an issue are relevant and important. And other people think this is a bad way to think. I wonder if one approach is better than the other. I suppose it depends on one's goals, and perhaps on some other things.
- keybored 2y ago
  It’s whataboutism. Yes. Pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrisies. That’s what is at the heart of it. > People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Like most people who yell “whataboutism” as if it is an argument you don’t make the effort to parse the salient commonality between these two countries: they both invade places. Being worse or better in some greater picture has got nothing to do with it.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    They don't "yell" whataboutism, they kindly point it out in context. And they already know that the US invades places, and have fully "parsed the salient commonality" that you seem to think is so elusive to them. The reason they need to keep doing that is because it seems necessary to counter/deflate the relentless "hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hyprocrisy" tide of thinking that tends to dominate what passes for discussion on the topic (backed by a lot of broken or distorted narratives about what actually did happen). And also, because in fact there are substantial differences between the current aggression in Ukraine and what the US has done in most of it recent adventures (the Iraq invasion the one notable exception). So while there are commonalities between what these countries do, by and large they really aren't that "salient". To suggest that they are is, well, whataboutism.
    - keybored 2y ago
      I’ll explain the context for my initial comment in this subthread. The comment I replied to was then downvoted and at the bottom of the thread. That’s why I did the whataboutism. I understand if you think it’s tedious to bring up America’s war efforts on tangentially related topics. There’s a time and place for everything. I used a more subtle hint in my first comment on this submission[1] while also addressing Stoicism (or stoicism). But I didn’t like when someone was downvoted for simply saying that going into self-made conflicts on the other side of the world might make someone question if the team they were fighting for had righteous reasons to fight. > They don't "yell" whataboutism, they kindly point it out in context. :) Since you refer to them and not you I can say that this point (non-argument) is brought up to shut down the conversation since whataboutism is (in their minds) basically a fallacy. It’s not “kind” but so are non of the conversation points on such a topic. So that’s whatever. > And they already know that the US invades places, and have fully "parsed the salient commonality" that you seem to think is so elusive to them. No one would presume that people have been living under a rock for half a century or so. That would be daft. Everyone knows that the US invades places. And plenty of people think that’s either good or that it’s bad but it was done with good intentions, so therefore no one is to blame. > The reason they need to keep doing that is because it seems necessary to counter/deflate the relentless "hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hyprocrisy" tide of thinking that tends to dominate what passes for discussion on the topic Counter it with what? Your “deflate” is quite on point. Why have an argument when you can do a whataboutism-deflate? Then you don’t need to provide any arguments. But then the other thread participants need to be on board with the thinking that it’s a slam-dunk. Which wasn’t the case this time. > (backed by a lot of broken or distorted narratives about what actually did happen). With that? It’s actually different? > And also, because in fact there are substantial differences between the current aggression in Ukraine and what the US has done in most of it recent adventures (the Iraq invasion the one notable exception). So while there are commonalities between what these countries do, by and large they really aren't that "salient". To suggest that they are is, well, whataboutism. See the original comment:[2] > > What scientists call the “are we the baddies?-syndrome” It’s never quite the same when the aggressor is “us” (the US or whatever else). Then any such comparison is obviously wrong and not nuanced. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724980 [2]: Which is from a skit, probably not a researched symptom. Right?

Well it’s certainly hard to tell sometimes. People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Russia: Other countries do bad things too!™

wruza 2y ago
How would you comment on that? What would change if ggp wasn’t (allegedly) russian? Your comment reads like “whatever, shut tf up” and nothing else. What you expect from that?
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. That wasn’t my point. I’m saying it’s a Russian talking point and a silly one. You can’t justify everything bad you ever do by bringing up the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Trust me I’ve tried.
  - wruza 2y ago
    I don’t think that that commenter tried to justify bad things, they only brought up a seemingly skewed perception of different nations by users of this forum. The fact that you see it as a sort of justification alone should be thought inducing. They simply added a contrast to what OP was already talking about in a delicate way, which was for reasons similar to those that generated this whole subthread.
    - keybored 2y ago
      Exactly. They interpreted the message backwards. Instead of: 1. This other empire/country invades countries (BAD). It would be weird for them to philosophize about “a philosophy for hard times”—that’s like a cold-blooded murderer trying to find a philosophy for the mental anguish that killing causes him, for those “hard times” (okay we’re two similes/metaphors down here maybe time to stop) 2. Likewise people shouldn’t be surprised and react with negativity[1] when someone points out that this empire/country does it (America) Instead they seem to have interpreted in this backwards, roundabout way: 1. We’re talking about America and the military 2. The main topic is not even how the military kills people, btw (that’s just the backdrop) 3. Russia enters out of left-field: Hey America invades countries so therefore it’s okay that Russia did it! Quite bizzare. [1] When I replied that reply was downvoted and at the bottom of the thread
      - dullcrisp 2y ago
        Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I’ll take the explanation though.
        wruza 2y ago
        It cuts both ways in you. You read both things when one was written, for an internal reason. That’s an important distinction. Otherwise there would be no way to say one thing without implying another. Human speech can generate lots of collateral associations, but all of them live in the mind of a listener. “Assume good faith”. A good writer predicts and suppresses associations in advance, but it’s not always feasible. The main issue itt is that skewed associations are its own topic.
        dullcrisp 2y ago
        In me and anyone else exposed to Russian propaganda, which is probably just about everyone. But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.
        keybored 2y ago
        > But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Wrong on two counts. 1. These kinds of comparisons hone in on the thing the two things have in common. Invading places. This goes back to my “salient commonality” point. Which you rejected. But now you’re back to claiming that a comparison makes things equal. They don’t. They show that two things have two specific things in common. 2. “You’re saying both those things”, referring to my second thing “it’s okay that Russia did it!” (the wrong interpretation). Somehow you’ve gone from “these two things are just as bad” (covered by (1)) to “therefore Russia doing it is okay”. I still can’t make sense of that. > Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps. Dressing it up in fancy language doesn’t make it true.
  - keybored 2y ago
    > I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. Have you stopped beating your wife? I don’t care if you’re a wifebeater, no judgement. I’m just randomly curious. Saying that someone is both a Russian and pro-Invasion (by your faulty interpretation) has a well-deserved stigma.
mistermann 2y ago
Some people have a weird thinking style whereby they think broader context and perspectives upon an issue are relevant and important. And other people think this is a bad way to think. I wonder if one approach is better than the other. I suppose it depends on one's goals, and perhaps on some other things.
keybored 2y ago
It’s whataboutism. Yes. Pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrisies. That’s what is at the heart of it. > People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Like most people who yell “whataboutism” as if it is an argument you don’t make the effort to parse the salient commonality between these two countries: they both invade places. Being worse or better in some greater picture has got nothing to do with it.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  They don't "yell" whataboutism, they kindly point it out in context. And they already know that the US invades places, and have fully "parsed the salient commonality" that you seem to think is so elusive to them. The reason they need to keep doing that is because it seems necessary to counter/deflate the relentless "hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hyprocrisy" tide of thinking that tends to dominate what passes for discussion on the topic (backed by a lot of broken or distorted narratives about what actually did happen). And also, because in fact there are substantial differences between the current aggression in Ukraine and what the US has done in most of it recent adventures (the Iraq invasion the one notable exception). So while there are commonalities between what these countries do, by and large they really aren't that "salient". To suggest that they are is, well, whataboutism.
  - keybored 2y ago
    I’ll explain the context for my initial comment in this subthread. The comment I replied to was then downvoted and at the bottom of the thread. That’s why I did the whataboutism. I understand if you think it’s tedious to bring up America’s war efforts on tangentially related topics. There’s a time and place for everything. I used a more subtle hint in my first comment on this submission[1] while also addressing Stoicism (or stoicism). But I didn’t like when someone was downvoted for simply saying that going into self-made conflicts on the other side of the world might make someone question if the team they were fighting for had righteous reasons to fight. > They don't "yell" whataboutism, they kindly point it out in context. :) Since you refer to them and not you I can say that this point (non-argument) is brought up to shut down the conversation since whataboutism is (in their minds) basically a fallacy. It’s not “kind” but so are non of the conversation points on such a topic. So that’s whatever. > And they already know that the US invades places, and have fully "parsed the salient commonality" that you seem to think is so elusive to them. No one would presume that people have been living under a rock for half a century or so. That would be daft. Everyone knows that the US invades places. And plenty of people think that’s either good or that it’s bad but it was done with good intentions, so therefore no one is to blame. > The reason they need to keep doing that is because it seems necessary to counter/deflate the relentless "hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hyprocrisy" tide of thinking that tends to dominate what passes for discussion on the topic Counter it with what? Your “deflate” is quite on point. Why have an argument when you can do a whataboutism-deflate? Then you don’t need to provide any arguments. But then the other thread participants need to be on board with the thinking that it’s a slam-dunk. Which wasn’t the case this time. > (backed by a lot of broken or distorted narratives about what actually did happen). With that? It’s actually different? > And also, because in fact there are substantial differences between the current aggression in Ukraine and what the US has done in most of it recent adventures (the Iraq invasion the one notable exception). So while there are commonalities between what these countries do, by and large they really aren't that "salient". To suggest that they are is, well, whataboutism. See the original comment:[2] > > What scientists call the “are we the baddies?-syndrome” It’s never quite the same when the aggressor is “us” (the US or whatever else). Then any such comparison is obviously wrong and not nuanced. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724980 [2]: Which is from a skit, probably not a researched symptom. Right?