Hacker News Reader

Comment by someonebaggy | Hacker News Reader

Every administration pushes it beyond what the previous administration did.

The "everyone does it" defense is how the worst of the worst get away with it.

And the "this one is different" defense is how the slightly less bad get away with it and continue to push the envelopse towards worse.

And, "Both sides are bad" only provides cover to the side that is worse.

"Both sides are bad" is the only one that condemns and potentially fights back against both bad actors.

The "side A is worse" or "side B is worse" only condemns one, and bends over for the other.

GP is right. In equating a very bad thing and a moderately bad thing you only bring attention away from the very bad thing. This isn't theoretical - it's an empirical observation.

You are correct, but everyone does it can ALSO be used to prevent anyone from getting away with it.

But it makes it clear that voting won't fix this.

Are you implying that not voting will somehow lead to a better solution?

Voting increasingly less corrupt options(as good as we can judge) is the way. What else can you do?

I am implying that protesting and probably creating a new political party are needed to get some kind of actual change.

Maybe, but due to Duverger's Law it's more likely to occur via a takeover of one of the big two parties.

This is just adding noise. Even if true, it's still very, very bad. Why even bother saying this?

Because GGP blamed a specific administration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com