Changpeng Zhao pled guilty for violating the Bank Secrecy Act and not complying with anti-money laundering requirements.
That also happened to a lot of big banks over and over again.
Three days ago one of the biggest was found guilty for helping Sudan’s government commit genocide by providing banking services that violated American sanctions [0]. Sounds worst.
Binance is a casino for millennial and gen Z and like casinos is used by criminal to launder money.
Should Changpeng Zhao be pardoned? I don't know, I don't care he is a small fish.
Should BNP CEO serves prison time? probably.
- [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bnp-paribas-shares-fall-us-17...
Whataboutism. Has to be called out.
What about the whataboutism of whataboutism? I.e. meta-whataboutism
The use of whataboutism and the ‘calling out’ of whataboutisms are both mechanisms of narrative control.
”Using logic and ethics against me is unfair?”
Friends of ”I thought there would be no fact checking ”
The person is making a valid point about the inconsistency in how non compliance was handled in traditional finance and blockchain.
Perhaps folks think that is not a "valid point" here because it is off topic, seeking to distract from the topic of whether this particular guilty person should be punished.
Saying "so and so did it too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)?
Are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon?
Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell?
It’s of course on topic to talk about the bigger picture of whether people in general are charged with these specific types of crimes or should be.
I hate the whole fallacy callout stuff in general. God didn’t create them, half barely work, none work in every situation, and they’re just abused to death by people to shut down conversation in a shallow way.
Saying "so and so did a thing too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)?
In that scenario, are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon?
Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell?
Without tying it back to the topic like that, the reply is only tangentially related, like replying "I go to a bank" to any topic that mentions or involves banks. Like, ok, great, at least it's not insulting posters, but not super constructive in discussing the topic (the Binance founder's crimes and pardon).
Whataboutism is a rhetological fallacy. Making fallacies is bad. Pointing out fallacies (or as you put it, "narrative control") is good.
Controlling the narrative is often the point of using rhetorical fallacies.
Like the intolerance of intolerance there is discretion over what are acceptable intolerances. With whataboutism there is discretion over what are acceptable appeals to hypocrisy.
Whatsboutism is merely saying your appeal to hypocrisy is invalid. Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own. Otherwise they’re being hypocritical about making appeals to hypocrisy.
On the substance, I hate what Trump has done. I would not take the position that what Trump did is ok because of what Biden did.
An "appeal to hypocrisy" is always invalid because that term is essentially synonymous with whataboutism and 'tu quoque' fallacies
The underlying failure of all of them, and why they are fallacies, is because the guilt of one side of an issue has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of the other. Thus, trying to pivot from the former to the latter is a distraction, rather than a genuine attempt to discuss the topic (which is the former).
> Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own.
"The side"? Dude, I'm a person, not a side, and you barely know anything about me, much less what I've done and do. The accusations of whataboutism weren't made by nebulous, ethereal concepts, they were made by people.
You can't pick and choose different behaviors of different people and lump them together as if they are the same person, then claim that the differing behaviors indicate some sort of hypocrisy or other conflict. What you're describing is diversity of thought among different people.
Even if you could, it's not even a good discussion, because then others could respond that your meta-criticism is itself hypocritical in the same way that you're responding to criticism by claiming that it is hypocritical. So you keep adding layers until the actual topic (the original criticism) is long forgotten. In fact, that is why whataboutism is used: its users don't want to focus on the original criticism.
Sounds like what I said, a form of narrative control. A charge I made of both appeals to hypocrisy and appeals to whataboutism.
My personal preference would be logical and factual discussions only but I accept that’s not the world we live in.
The deleterious effect of the additional layers is ameliorated by the nesting of information on HN, you don’t have to keep digging if you don’t want to.
> Sounds like what I said, a form of narrative control.
Yes, whataboutism is both a rhetological fallacy and a form of "narrative control".
> A charge I made of both appeals to hypocrisy and appeals to whataboutism.
"Appeal to whataboutism" isn't a thing. It's just called "whataboutism", and since whataboutism and "appeal to hypocrisy" (seems synonymous with whataboutism) are both fallacies, pointing them out is just called "pointing out fallacies". Fallacies don't need any 'appeals' or arguments made against them, because they are already fallacious, that's why we call them fallacies.
And yes, pointing out fallacious arguments could be called "narrative control", too ;) So could be saying anything! After all, anyone saying anything is trying to "control the narrative" to include that thing. What a silly, needlessly conspiratorial neologism for a uselessly vague concept!
The discretion of the validity of pointing out hypocrisy is the core of the issue. I would 100% agree with you if all discussions are purely logical, but they’re not, so I don’t.
The introduction of whataboutism into the lexicon was to counter Russian appeals to hypocrisy. This was linked to Trump in an effort to discredit both. Those of us who have long memories do remember a time when pointing out the hypocrisy of the West was considered a valid thing to do. See the work of Noam Chomsky as an example.
A Tu Quoque fallacy, or as you put it, "pointing out hypocrisy", is a fallacy. Some people do not like logical discussions, so they use that fallacy anyways. That is totally ok, I'm not the boss of them.
But, it will likely be pointed out that their fallacious arguments are fallacious, and at that point, they can choose to make valid arguments, or to continue their string of failures by unconvincingly making more fallacious ones.
> The introduction of whataboutism into the lexicon was to counter Russian appeals to hypocrisy
Cool! "Appeal to hypocrisy", or Tu Quoque, is a fallacy and any arguments invoking it are accordingly fallacious. Coining another synonym ("whataboutism") doesn't change things. Those making fallacious arguments can try to make valid arguments (if there are any) for their case next time.
> Those of us who have long memories do remember a time when pointing out the hypocrisy of the West was considered a valid thing to do
I've got a long memory, too, and the Tu Quoque fallacy was never a valid defense, no matter what you called it. That's what makes it a fallacy.
Doesn't make the double standards any less true.