4 ms·

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 commo

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?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Is deflating/shutting-down always such a bad thing? Conversely: are all positions worthy of protracted, nuanced debate? I think not. And in particular, I find the the position that "hypocrisy, or rather weakly supported insinuations of hypocrisy, in regard to a certain evil is a vastly more vital and pressing topic than the actual evil happening on the ground itself" (to sum up these discussions in a nutshell) to be especially non-worthy of protracted discussion and "nuanced" debate. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, such as debates and counter-debates about whataboutism on HN.
  - keybored 2y ago
    > I think not. And in particular, I find the the position that "hypocrisy, or rather weakly supported insinuations of hypocrisy, in regard to a certain evil is a vastly more vital and pressing topic than the actual evil happening on the ground itself" (to sum up these discussions in a nutshell) to be especially non-worthy of protracted discussion and "nuanced" debate. I can’t keep up with your trains of interpretation. Whatever the actual evil happening on the ground is, it can’t be about the submission since that’s just about lounging in a lecture hall and talking about philosophy. So I’m at a loss as regards the thing we’re being distracted from. > God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, such as debates and counter-debates about whataboutism on HN. God, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, such as people responding to me on a topic that I myself started. Doesn’t sound as reasonable in that formulation.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      So I’m at a loss as regards the thing we’re being distracted from. Right, not the original submission but the reference to the Russo-Ukraine war, mid-thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41748747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41748747 - and in reference to which, pointless/vacuous accusations of hypocrisy tend to emerge with depressing regularity. Judging by the volume and tenacity of their output, a lot of people do seem to feel that the topic of Western hypocrisy is vastly more important and interesting than that of the genocide/invasion itself, basically. If it were just about people lounging in a lecture hall, I wouldn't have chimed in at all.

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?

aguaviva 2y ago
Is deflating/shutting-down always such a bad thing? Conversely: are all positions worthy of protracted, nuanced debate? I think not. And in particular, I find the the position that "hypocrisy, or rather weakly supported insinuations of hypocrisy, in regard to a certain evil is a vastly more vital and pressing topic than the actual evil happening on the ground itself" (to sum up these discussions in a nutshell) to be especially non-worthy of protracted discussion and "nuanced" debate. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, such as debates and counter-debates about whataboutism on HN.
- keybored 2y ago
  > I think not. And in particular, I find the the position that "hypocrisy, or rather weakly supported insinuations of hypocrisy, in regard to a certain evil is a vastly more vital and pressing topic than the actual evil happening on the ground itself" (to sum up these discussions in a nutshell) to be especially non-worthy of protracted discussion and "nuanced" debate. I can’t keep up with your trains of interpretation. Whatever the actual evil happening on the ground is, it can’t be about the submission since that’s just about lounging in a lecture hall and talking about philosophy. So I’m at a loss as regards the thing we’re being distracted from. > God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, such as debates and counter-debates about whataboutism on HN. God, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, such as people responding to me on a topic that I myself started. Doesn’t sound as reasonable in that formulation.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    So I’m at a loss as regards the thing we’re being distracted from. Right, not the original submission but the reference to the Russo-Ukraine war, mid-thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41748747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41748747 - and in reference to which, pointless/vacuous accusations of hypocrisy tend to emerge with depressing regularity. Judging by the volume and tenacity of their output, a lot of people do seem to feel that the topic of Western hypocrisy is vastly more important and interesting than that of the genocide/invasion itself, basically. If it were just about people lounging in a lecture hall, I wouldn't have chimed in at all.