3 ms·

Changpeng Zhao pled guilty for violating the Bank Secrecy Act and not complying with anti-money laundering requirements. That also happened to a lot of big ban

Changpeng Zhao pled guilty for violating the Bank Secrecy Act and not complying with anti-money laundering requirements. That also happened to a lot of big banks over and over again. Three days ago one of the biggest was found guilty for helping Sudan’s government commit genocide by providing banking services that violated American sanctions [0]. Sounds worst. Binance is a casino for millennial and gen Z and like casinos is used by criminal to launder money. Should Changpeng Zhao be pardoned? I don't know, I don't care he is a small fish. Should BNP CEO serves prison time? probably. - [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bnp-paribas-shares-fall-us-170052551.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bnp-paribas-shares-fall-us-17...

jamesblonde 1y ago
Whataboutism. Has to be called out.
- Onavo 1y ago
  Doesn't make the double standards any less true.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  What about the whataboutism of whataboutism? I.e. meta-whataboutism The use of whataboutism and the ‘calling out’ of whataboutisms are both mechanisms of narrative control.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    Whataboutism is a rhetological fallacy. Making fallacies is bad. Pointing out fallacies (or as you put it, "narrative control") is good.
    - cjbgkagh 1y ago
      Controlling the narrative is often the point of using rhetorical fallacies. Like the intolerance of intolerance there is discretion over what are acceptable intolerances. With whataboutism there is discretion over what are acceptable appeals to hypocrisy. Whatsboutism is merely saying your appeal to hypocrisy is invalid. Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own. Otherwise they’re being hypocritical about making appeals to hypocrisy. On the substance, I hate what Trump has done. I would not take the position that what Trump did is ok because of what Biden did.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        An "appeal to hypocrisy" is always invalid because that term is essentially synonymous with whataboutism and 'tu quoque' fallacies The underlying failure of all of them, and why they are fallacies, is because the guilt of one side of an issue has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of the other. Thus, trying to pivot from the former to the latter is a distraction, rather than a genuine attempt to discuss the topic (which is the former). > Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own. "The side"? Dude, I'm a person, not a side, and you barely know anything about me, much less what I've done and do. The accusations of whataboutism weren't made by nebulous, ethereal concepts, they were made by people. You can't pick and choose different behaviors of different people and lump them together as if they are the same person, then claim that the differing behaviors indicate some sort of hypocrisy or other conflict. What you're describing is diversity of thought among different people. Even if you could, it's not even a good discussion, because then others could respond that your meta-criticism is itself hypocritical in the same way that you're responding to criticism by claiming that it is hypocritical. So you keep adding layers until the actual topic (the original criticism) is long forgotten. In fact, that is why whataboutism is used: its users don't want to focus on the original criticism.
        cjbgkagh 1y ago
        Sounds like what I said, a form of narrative control. A charge I made of both appeals to hypocrisy and appeals to whataboutism. My personal preference would be logical and factual discussions only but I accept that’s not the world we live in. The deleterious effect of the additional layers is ameliorated by the nesting of information on HN, you don’t have to keep digging if you don’t want to.
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > Sounds like what I said, a form of narrative control. Yes, whataboutism is both a rhetological fallacy and a form of "narrative control". > A charge I made of both appeals to hypocrisy and appeals to whataboutism. "Appeal to whataboutism" isn't a thing. It's just called "whataboutism", and since whataboutism and "appeal to hypocrisy" (seems synonymous with whataboutism) are both fallacies, pointing them out is just called "pointing out fallacies". Fallacies don't need any 'appeals' or arguments made against them, because they are already fallacious, that's why we call them fallacies. And yes, pointing out fallacious arguments could be called "narrative control", too ;) So could be saying anything! After all, anyone saying anything is trying to "control the narrative" to include that thing. What a silly, needlessly conspiratorial neologism for a uselessly vague concept!
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    ”Using logic and ethics against me is unfair?” Friends of ”I thought there would be no fact checking ”
    - nailer 1y ago
      The person is making a valid point about the inconsistency in how non compliance was handled in traditional finance and blockchain.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Perhaps folks think that is not a "valid point" here because it is off topic, seeking to distract from the topic of whether this particular guilty person should be punished. Saying "so and so did it too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)? Are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon? Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell?
        nwienert 1y ago
        It’s of course on topic to talk about the bigger picture of whether people in general are charged with these specific types of crimes or should be. I hate the whole fallacy callout stuff in general. God didn’t create them, half barely work, none work in every situation, and they’re just abused to death by people to shut down conversation in a shallow way.
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Saying "so and so did a thing too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)? In that scenario, are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon? Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell? Without tying it back to the topic like that, the reply is only tangentially related, like replying "I go to a bank" to any topic that mentions or involves banks. Like, ok, great, at least it's not insulting posters, but not super constructive in discussing the topic (the Binance founder's crimes and pardon).

jamesblonde 1y ago

Whataboutism. Has to be called out.

Onavo 1y ago
Doesn't make the double standards any less true.
cjbgkagh 1y ago
What about the whataboutism of whataboutism? I.e. meta-whataboutism The use of whataboutism and the ‘calling out’ of whataboutisms are both mechanisms of narrative control.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  Whataboutism is a rhetological fallacy. Making fallacies is bad. Pointing out fallacies (or as you put it, "narrative control") is good.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    Controlling the narrative is often the point of using rhetorical fallacies. Like the intolerance of intolerance there is discretion over what are acceptable intolerances. With whataboutism there is discretion over what are acceptable appeals to hypocrisy. Whatsboutism is merely saying your appeal to hypocrisy is invalid. Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own. Otherwise they’re being hypocritical about making appeals to hypocrisy. On the substance, I hate what Trump has done. I would not take the position that what Trump did is ok because of what Biden did.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      An "appeal to hypocrisy" is always invalid because that term is essentially synonymous with whataboutism and 'tu quoque' fallacies The underlying failure of all of them, and why they are fallacies, is because the guilt of one side of an issue has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of the other. Thus, trying to pivot from the former to the latter is a distraction, rather than a genuine attempt to discuss the topic (which is the former). > Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own. "The side"? Dude, I'm a person, not a side, and you barely know anything about me, much less what I've done and do. The accusations of whataboutism weren't made by nebulous, ethereal concepts, they were made by people. You can't pick and choose different behaviors of different people and lump them together as if they are the same person, then claim that the differing behaviors indicate some sort of hypocrisy or other conflict. What you're describing is diversity of thought among different people. Even if you could, it's not even a good discussion, because then others could respond that your meta-criticism is itself hypocritical in the same way that you're responding to criticism by claiming that it is hypocritical. So you keep adding layers until the actual topic (the original criticism) is long forgotten. In fact, that is why whataboutism is used: its users don't want to focus on the original criticism.
      - cjbgkagh 1y ago
        Sounds like what I said, a form of narrative control. A charge I made of both appeals to hypocrisy and appeals to whataboutism. My personal preference would be logical and factual discussions only but I accept that’s not the world we live in. The deleterious effect of the additional layers is ameliorated by the nesting of information on HN, you don’t have to keep digging if you don’t want to.
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > Sounds like what I said, a form of narrative control. Yes, whataboutism is both a rhetological fallacy and a form of "narrative control". > A charge I made of both appeals to hypocrisy and appeals to whataboutism. "Appeal to whataboutism" isn't a thing. It's just called "whataboutism", and since whataboutism and "appeal to hypocrisy" (seems synonymous with whataboutism) are both fallacies, pointing them out is just called "pointing out fallacies". Fallacies don't need any 'appeals' or arguments made against them, because they are already fallacious, that's why we call them fallacies. And yes, pointing out fallacious arguments could be called "narrative control", too ;) So could be saying anything! After all, anyone saying anything is trying to "control the narrative" to include that thing. What a silly, needlessly conspiratorial neologism for a uselessly vague concept!
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  ”Using logic and ethics against me is unfair?” Friends of ”I thought there would be no fact checking ”
  - nailer 1y ago
    The person is making a valid point about the inconsistency in how non compliance was handled in traditional finance and blockchain.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      Perhaps folks think that is not a "valid point" here because it is off topic, seeking to distract from the topic of whether this particular guilty person should be punished. Saying "so and so did it too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)? Are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon? Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell?
      - nwienert 1y ago
        It’s of course on topic to talk about the bigger picture of whether people in general are charged with these specific types of crimes or should be. I hate the whole fallacy callout stuff in general. God didn’t create them, half barely work, none work in every situation, and they’re just abused to death by people to shut down conversation in a shallow way.
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Saying "so and so did a thing too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)? In that scenario, are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon? Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell? Without tying it back to the topic like that, the reply is only tangentially related, like replying "I go to a bank" to any topic that mentions or involves banks. Like, ok, great, at least it's not insulting posters, but not super constructive in discussing the topic (the Binance founder's crimes and pardon).