Hacker News Reader

Comment by StavrosK | Hacker News Reader

I suggest you read the article you linked.

I apologize if I missed something in the thread and misinterpreted it. I did read the link, can you please enlighten me with your interpretation?

Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.

Pardon my ignorance, but just so I understand, when you said “Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?” Which war crimes were you referring to?

If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Jeez, what's with the Wikipedia links all the time? People drive by, throw a term around, and leave. How am I committing gaslighting? Am I rearranging the furniture in your house while you're away or something?

I should not have said that second part. To break it down, can you please explain to me which war crimes you are referring to, and how they are related to the beginning of this thread?

Probably referring to those Manning exposed thru Wikileaks.

> The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes"

No...they are not protecting themselves. Their crimes have already been exposed. They are prosecuting someone for something that was criminal.

> who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.

Ok, and how does that bear on the issue of Assange's extradition? Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes.

No, it’s about getting revenge for exposing them and sending a message.

> Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes.

Where did I say that?

If you weren't saying that, then what was the point of your comment?

No, that's not at all what that person was doing. They acknowledged the war crimes and then also said he's a criminal that should be dealt with. It would've been whataboutism if he had said that the war crimes don't matter because of XYZ.

I suggest you read the article you linked.

Please review carefully the chain of comments, because it seems there could be some misunderstanding there: consumer451 was answering to darawk, not to you. Maybe instead of "to textbook whataboutism" was meant to be "with textbook whataboutism"?

Otherwise this thread is total nonsense to me. No surprise either...

He was responding to them, saying that they, in turn, were responding to textbook whataboutism, ie my comment.

That's what it seems, but I refused to believe it because then his mind process is totally impenetrable to me.

Yeah, I don't know. I have decided I don't like it when people drop Wikipedia links and leave, at least explain why you think that is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com