OP's comment is not whataboutism. It's simply pointing out that this is not the principled stand it is masquerading as. If this action was strictly about countries waging unprovoked wars heavily laden with war crimes, the US would be on the chopping block from NC's perspective. That we were not (nor ever will be) is a testament to the fact that the US is too lucrative a market for them to lose and that this is not principled whatsoever.
Attacking a position solely because it is inconsistent is the definition of whataboutism. (And perfect consistency is the enemy of improving short-term outcomes.)
"A propaganda technique where criticisms are deflected by raising corresponding criticisms of the opposite side."[0]
OP is not deflecting criticisms of Russia, OP is pointing out that the claim that NC is taking a principled stance is blatantly false. Obviously NC can still choose to proceed since they believe that this is a net benefit, but they cannot claim it is a principled stance.
No, crying out "whataboutism" is precisely what is wrong with our discourse ATM. We are simply unprincipled or contradictory in huge swathes of our daily lives and especially when it comes to these "large" issues. And it is an especially important element in a site like HN with many technical and (rule or process) orientated people. You have to peel back the layers, and the GP comment is spot on in that it spawns a discussion along the lines of "why is this one different?" If we figure out that difference and the collective news and opinion's community apparent double-standard (or not) then we have a good place to allow us to move forward.
You and others use "whataboutism" like it's some sort of checkmate. The point is, many Americans are very eager to police everyone based on their "principles", everyone else except themselves and their allies that is.
The topic of discussion is not whether or not the Russian invasion of Ukraine is bad. If it was, your argument would be applicable.
This topic is analogous to "selective enforcement" from police. If a policeman typically jails blacks but gives whites a warning for the same crime, this is bad, and should be acknowledged as such. Same here.
You're comparing a civil-rights violation to a business inconvenience. Namecheap and others like them owe nobody anything except by contract, and they're going to refund (to the extent possible) those they won't do business with anymore.
Whataboutism usually follows some kind of hypocrisy.
The act of pointing out whataboutism are usually done so the hypocritical side can take refuge and refute any discussion. This often happen because hypocrisy is real - otherwise it would be easy to refute the equivalence instead.
As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument. It's seen by many as a vain attempt to show how smart you are, as opposed to participating in a substantive discussion of the issue at hand.
> As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument.
It does sometimes gets you somewhere. Hypocrisy implies the (often moral) concern over the accusation is not a genuine one, that the accusers are merely criticising to advance their agenda. If an agenda is involved, then whatever the accuser says should be taken with some grain of salt.
Pointing out hypocrisy destroys the argument & the discussion as a whole, because it reveals that the other person is arguing in bad faith.
In case of Namecheap: it’s 100% complete bullshit when they say they hate war & invasions, and people are calling them out on that. Instead, they should say “we prefer when US invades, because we hate Russia” which would be much closer to the truth.
Calling out whataboutism is just a way to avoid explaining your inconsistent views. Often times people who call out whataboutism haven't really thought out their position.
OP's comment is not whataboutism. It's simply pointing out that this is not the principled stand it is masquerading as. If this action was strictly about countries waging unprovoked wars heavily laden with war crimes, the US would be on the chopping block from NC's perspective. That we were not (nor ever will be) is a testament to the fact that the US is too lucrative a market for them to lose and that this is not principled whatsoever.
Attacking a position solely because it is inconsistent is the definition of whataboutism. (And perfect consistency is the enemy of improving short-term outcomes.)
"A propaganda technique where criticisms are deflected by raising corresponding criticisms of the opposite side."[0]
OP is not deflecting criticisms of Russia, OP is pointing out that the claim that NC is taking a principled stance is blatantly false. Obviously NC can still choose to proceed since they believe that this is a net benefit, but they cannot claim it is a principled stance.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutism
> And perfect consistency is the enemy of improving short-term outcomes.
Sure, I can agree with that point. But everyone can agree that pointing out inconsistency is definitionally not whataboutism.
4 replies →
No, crying out "whataboutism" is precisely what is wrong with our discourse ATM. We are simply unprincipled or contradictory in huge swathes of our daily lives and especially when it comes to these "large" issues. And it is an especially important element in a site like HN with many technical and (rule or process) orientated people. You have to peel back the layers, and the GP comment is spot on in that it spawns a discussion along the lines of "why is this one different?" If we figure out that difference and the collective news and opinion's community apparent double-standard (or not) then we have a good place to allow us to move forward.
Address it, don't dismiss it.
1 reply →
You and others use "whataboutism" like it's some sort of checkmate. The point is, many Americans are very eager to police everyone based on their "principles", everyone else except themselves and their allies that is.
The topic of discussion is not whether or not the Russian invasion of Ukraine is bad. If it was, your argument would be applicable.
This topic is analogous to "selective enforcement" from police. If a policeman typically jails blacks but gives whites a warning for the same crime, this is bad, and should be acknowledged as such. Same here.
You're comparing a civil-rights violation to a business inconvenience. Namecheap and others like them owe nobody anything except by contract, and they're going to refund (to the extent possible) those they won't do business with anymore.
It's hypocrisy nonetheless, regardless of the scale
3 replies →
Whataboutism usually follows some kind of hypocrisy.
The act of pointing out whataboutism are usually done so the hypocritical side can take refuge and refute any discussion. This often happen because hypocrisy is real - otherwise it would be easy to refute the equivalence instead.
As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument. It's seen by many as a vain attempt to show how smart you are, as opposed to participating in a substantive discussion of the issue at hand.
> As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument.
It does sometimes gets you somewhere. Hypocrisy implies the (often moral) concern over the accusation is not a genuine one, that the accusers are merely criticising to advance their agenda. If an agenda is involved, then whatever the accuser says should be taken with some grain of salt.
1 reply →
Pointing out hypocrisy destroys the argument & the discussion as a whole, because it reveals that the other person is arguing in bad faith.
In case of Namecheap: it’s 100% complete bullshit when they say they hate war & invasions, and people are calling them out on that. Instead, they should say “we prefer when US invades, because we hate Russia” which would be much closer to the truth.
4 replies →
Ah, yes. "What about whataboutism!?"
Calling out whataboutism is just a way to avoid explaining your inconsistent views. Often times people who call out whataboutism haven't really thought out their position.
No, I’m calling it out because it cheapens our discourse. We can, and should, have more substantive conversations here.
So instead of saying “whataboutism” you can tell us why it’s okay to be hypocritical, or why the situation is sufficiently different.
Making statements that are hypocritical cheapens discourse, and we can and should have more substantive conversations here.
1 reply →
>"It's not HN-caliber"
Are you suggesting that the hypocrisy is?