August 30th, 2018

(no subject)

The BBC has a recent animation short about whataboutism:

(And I did not even realize watching it for the first time how instantaneously they jump to Nazis. Way to go, BBC!)

The concept of whataboutism as a fundamentally flawed rhetorical tactic is giving me some trouble. Of course, when employed crudely, and with a thick Russian accent, it feels disingenuous, intellectually lazy, and overall distasteful, but the very idea that there is something wrong in pointing at a similar problematic issue when discussing a problem, feels misguided. If, when told that A is doing X, which is bad, you point out that B is also doing X (or maybe doing Y, which in some essential respects is similar to X), is it always bad for the discussion? What happened to shifting the perspective, expanding the horizon, broadening the context? What happened to the inductive reasoning, to argument from analogy?

And if such a tactic is perfectly admissible, then what exactly is whataboutism?

(no subject)

What does the feminist theory have to say about this unequal treatment of the population? Are feminists voicing their protest?

(no subject)

Another little piece of drama in the open-source world.

So there is this developer, who contributes to the Lerna project.

And what he does is he goes to the repo of Palantir, which uses Lerna, and creates several issues telling them to stop using the project, because they did some contract work for the current government, and the Trump’s government is evil, don't you know, and that makes them racist, and he does not want racists to use his tools.

(examples 1, 2, 3)

Also, he modifies Lerna’s licence, explicitly saying that he forbids specific companies to use it, because they collaborated with the US ICE.

Eventually someone opens an issue in Lerna‘s repo to say what the fuck, get rid of the guy already.

Which, to my surprise, it seems that they did. I thought virtue signalling makes one immune these days.