

What-aboutery - sho
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html

======
chops
_when 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
It's a bit more than that, because it is an attempt to accuse the other party
of hypocrisy.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
One of the comments claims it is called a Tuo Quoque (You also) Fallacy.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque>

------
yafujifide
Independent 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.

~~~
j2d2
I'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
That 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

~~~
michaelkeenan
That attitude makes me uneasy. Atheists are tempted to dismiss religion and
sit back, confident in our superior rationality. But what we should do is try
to learn even more from theist errors. The errors are not just limited to the
obvious (to us) errors like faith in the supernatural. There's also obedience
to authority. The Milgram Experiments show that plenty of good people will do
evil in certain circumstances.

------
phugoid
People 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.

~~~
tomsaffell
> 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
Yes, 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.

------
te_platt
I 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
Not all all. In both cases, your "what about" stayed on topic.

~~~
te_platt
That was exactly the point I was trying to make. "What about" arguments can be
valid.

~~~
potatolicious
Splitting hairs, he was specifically referring to the deflection-style "what
about" argument, as if the sins of others justifies one's own.

~~~
ecommercematt
How does one differentiate "deflection-style 'what about' arguments" from
valid "what about" arguments free from bias?

~~~
berntb
If 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...

~~~
ecommercematt
I wasn't trolling. I was just pointing out that it seems like a subjective
distinction as a practical matter and asking if there was a way to make it
less subjective in the context of online comments, argument rebuttals, etc.

------
rms
While we're on the topic, this is an exceptional blog that covers labor issues
in neighboring Qatar. <http://qatar.livejournal.com/tag/rights>

------
nir
The original Dubai article was very interesting and a good fit for HN, imho.
This one feels more like a Reddit submission.

~~~
phugoid
Really? 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
I 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..

------
jibiki
This 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
You'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.

~~~
jibiki
It'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
> EDIT: On second thought, I'm making exactly the same mistake he's pointing
> out.

Congratulations on recognizing that.

