5 ms·
What-aboutery
- jibiki 18y agoThis article is presumably going to get flagged, but I would accuse Mr. Hari of dishonesty here. His original piece gave the impression that Dubai was a total hell on earth, totally beyond redemption. From reading his article, I got the impression that human rights are vastly more respected in Britain than in Dubai. If this is his belief (and not just my impression,) then he should defend it, instead of hiding behind "the world is not divided into a Block of Light and a Block of Darkness." (I thought his Dubai piece was long on opinion and short on facts, but that is neither here nor there.)
- radu_floricica 18y agoYou're falling into the exact same fallacy he's pointing. Why should he start defending a position he never expressed? There are many things you can "get the impression that". Why would you hang on to them and not address the main points, which are as big and visible as a painted target? As for the rebuttal, it didn't even try to address the original article. It just tried to change the discussion to a more favorable position.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- jibiki 18y agoIt's not just my impression: "This is a city built from nothing in just a few wild decades on credit and ecocide, suppression and slavery. Dubai is a living metal metaphor for the neo-liberal globalised world that may be crashing – at last – into history." Al Qassemi seems to say that one could draw a similarly broad and misleading conclusion about Britain. Maybe Hari should at least address this point. I mean, he hints that the answer is yes, and such a conclusion is valid, but he never says it. EDIT: On second thought, I'm making exactly the same mistake he's pointing out.
- gabrielroth 18y ago> EDIT: On second thought, I'm making exactly the same mistake he's pointing out. Congratulations on recognizing that.
- chops 18y agowhen you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?" You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it - hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case. Isn't this just a Red Herring fallacy? From Wikipedia: Red herring (logical fallacy), a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument
- mattmcknight 18y agoIt's a bit more than that, because it is an attempt to accuse the other party of hypocrisy.
- ZeroGravitas 18y agoOne of the comments claims it is called a Tuo Quoque (You also) Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- yafujifide 18y agoIndependent of the Dubai issue, I think he is right about the "what-about x" argument. I have seen it many times before. Like in religious debates, an atheist might hear the argument, "so if you don't believe in God, where do you get your morals from?" as though that has anything to do with whether God exists.
- berntb 18y agoThe double think is quite sad/fun. I've heard religious people smarter than me mix the argument "X is true" with "it is good to believe X is true".
- ajkirwin 18y agoThen are they really smarter than you?
- berntb 18y agoThere is some old saw that intelligent people believe so many strange things because they are smart enough to convince themselves... I've seen that even in non-ideological areas, for people with "too large" verbal talent, which believed their own bullshit. But that might pass with age.
- j2d2 18y agoI'm fearful of sounding like a redditroll, but Hitchens handles this particular topic well. He asks people to name a single moral act believers can do that nonbelievers cannot do. Then, when no one has an answer, he asks a corollary; name a single act of evil done entirely in god's name.
- ori_b 18y agoThat sounds like he stole it from Peter Weinberg: With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg
- te_platt 18y agoI disagree with the author. Bringing up "what about x" has many valid uses. For example: "Look at my perpetual motion machine!" "What about the cable plugged into the outlet?" "Don't change the subject!" "You are a murderer because you killed Mr. Jones." "What about the fact that Mr. Jones broke into my house and was trying to rape my wife?" "Two wrongs don't make a right!" Certainly it can be abused but very often the "what about x" argument can be a valid way of introducing new and relevant information.
- phugoid 18y agoNot all all. In both cases, your "what about" stayed on topic.
- te_platt 18y agoThat was exactly the point I was trying to make. "What about" arguments can be valid.
- potatolicious 18y agoSplitting hairs, he was specifically referring to the deflection-style "what about" argument, as if the sins of others justifies one's own.
- ecommercematt 18y agoHow does one differentiate "deflection-style 'what about' arguments" from valid "what about" arguments free from bias?
- berntb 18y agoIf that was a serious question and not a troll, check philosophy courses; should be some online. They have a bit of history in that discipline of logic and analyzing arguments...
- phugoid 18y agoPeople here are not used to hearing open criticism of their country or their rulers. The "Dark Side of Dubai" article really didn't spare anyone's feelings, to say the least. That kind of disrespect beckons retaliation of some kind. Since Mr. Hari is safely out of reach in the UK, the only response is to openly dis the UK - even if it means dredging up stories from WWII.
- sfg 18y agoWhy does it beckon retaliation instead of correction? If it is because he is correct then retaliation would seem like something only the immature or stupid would engage in. More enlightened souls would either point out their already standing agreement or would learn. By the way, I did not read this 'Dark Side of Dubai' article you mention and I have no idea therefore what was said in it.
- tomsaffell 18y ago> That kind of disrespect beckons retaliation of some kind. Not for everyone it doesn't. It's highly dependent on culture, and it's personal too. When 37 signals criticized Get Satisfaction, Get Satisfaction replied with grace, and addressed the points raised by 37 Signals. Of course it wasn't perfect, but it certainly didn't fall in the camp of retaliation.
- phugoid 18y agoYes, it's very cultural. I have observed first-hand how people here go ballistic at the slightest perceived slight. This spirit of vengefulness has gotten worse as the city has mushroomed with foreigners who now outnumber locals 20 to 1, making them a small minority in their own city. Their culture and way of life are under attack, from their own leaders' ambitions.
- nir 18y agoThe original Dubai article was very interesting and a good fit for HN, imho. This one feels more like a Reddit submission.
- phugoid 18y agoReally? I disagree. The original article was written in tones of anger and disgust. Most of what he said there is accurate by my reckoning, and these facts stand on their own without the need of his London-tabloidesque prose. Yep, I just made that word up. This new article is a calm discussion about rhetoric and dealing with trolls, something HN seems quite interested in.
- nir 18y agoI actually agree almost %100 - the initial article's tone was very, well, Johan Harri in The Independent (London-tabloidesque is putting it mildly :)), but the subject was interesting. This one is indeed about rhetoric and trolls - while an interesting subject, not sure this is where I'd go for advice on it..
- rms 18y agoWhile we're on the topic, this is an exceptional blog that covers labor issues in neighboring Qatar. http://qatar.livejournal.com/tag/rights http://qatar.livejournal.com/tag/rights