4 ms·
This is a classic Whataboutism[1], used to derail discussion. In this case, the topic is BTCKing et al, and this post I am responding to is a "What about HSBC"
by pnathan 13y ago
This is a classic Whataboutism[1], used to derail discussion.
In this case, the topic is BTCKing et al, and this post I am responding to is a "What about HSBC".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- TomSawyer 13y agoAlso: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
- camelite 13y agoThe charge of whataboutism hinges upon the irrelevance of the counter-charge. Since the two are being accused here of exactly the same crime, the charge fails. Not to mention that, from reading the wikipedia article, the inspiration for the term comes from a situation where the counter-charge comes from the initially accused party, which is not the case here.
- tptacek 13y agoNo it doesn't. Read some articles about it. The problem with Whataboutism is that two wrongs don't make a right, and that "you're a hypocrite" is a very superficial rebuttal to an otherwise valid criticism.
- kentrado 13y agoThere's nothing to rebut. The guy is pointing out an inconsistency in the way law operates. Fairness hinges on consistency. He is identifying the whole affair as unfair which is a valid statement to make. The "you are hypocrite" fallacy only applies when it is in the form of "you are a hypocrite, therefore what you are saying is false".
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- camelite 13y agoI didn't read the original comment as calling out "hackernews hypocrites" but rather the justice system.
- SilasX 13y agoLet's say that I get arrested and hit with a possible 50 years in prison for driving while slightly tired. Not "drowsy" per se, just slightly tired. And the reason is that "hey, you're putting other people at risk -- you could have killed someone there!" Let's further say that a wealthy businessman killed 1,000 people to harvest and sell their organs. And his punishment is a fine equal to 2% of the profits earned that way. In that situation: - Yes, you would be correct to say that the organ harvester guy's actions do not absolve me of responsibility for putting people at risk. - OTOH, it would be a perfectly valid question to ask why I'm facing such a stiffer penalty for a significantly less harmful act than someone else.
- gnaritas 13y ago> - OTOH, it would be a perfectly valid question to ask why I'm facing such a stiffer penalty for a significantly less harmful act than someone else. No, it really isn't. Your crime stands alone, that someone else may have gotten away with something has no bearing on your case unless that other case established some legal precedent, which it didn't. Another crime doesn't excuse yours.
- SilasX 13y agoThat's why I said the bullet point before the one you quoted.
- gnaritas 13y agoWhich is where you should have stopped; but you said OTOH, and I'm saying no, no OTOH, that's not a valid reason.
- onetwofiveten 13y agoOne crime doesn't excuse another. However, a discrepancy between sentences indicates either that one sentence was too harsh or one sentence was too soft. It's a valid question to ask which is true.
- onetwofiveten 13y agoI think it's okay for the topic of conversation to move from this particular money laundering case to recent money laundering cases in general. It wouldn't be reasonable for BTCKing to use the HSBC case in his defence, but that's not what is happening here. This is a discussion about a news post, it makes sense to widen the discussion to include other related news topics.