Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | doublea's commentslogin

Think of the bullet you dodged.


Finally, pure whataboutism.


Not really in my opinion.

The poster was expressing that they're shocked, saying what a corrput state Russia was. And I don't quite understand why they're shocked and presumed that they're from the US.

I didn't try to deflect by saying "Russia isn't a dangerously corrput state because look at the US", I tried to say "Why are you shocked about Russia when your own country has it's problems with corruption too."

Hope that makes sense and that I'm now not registered as a russian astro-turfer.


When attacking Russia for a specific thing, bringing up the misdeeds of the US are a distraction, and "whataboutism".

When comparing the morality of the two nations (or criticising the "world police" status of the US as hypocritical) recalling American misdeeds is appropriate.

In the case the post was "what a corrupt state", attacking character of Russia generally, hence it's appropriate. It's worth pointing out that OJ Simpson published a book "If I did it", which could be seen as morally unacceptable too - but then there would be a difference between "that's terrible" and "America is terrible".


For some reason everyone on this site sees the term “whataboutism” as an immediate way to invalidate a statement they disagree with.

I believe OPs point was that in fact, Russia is as corrupt as other world powers…so you shouldn’t be shocked by their tolerance of cyber criminals.


15% of the population has 31% of hospitalizations.

Definitely a "surprise".


See https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/true-time-external-con...

It should explain how clock uncertainty relates to throughput of causally-related transactions.


This doesn't seem to be the case. At least studies on Moderna/Pfizer have found lower rates of asymptomatic infection/transmission in vaccinated people. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

Given how important it is to get the vaccine to as many people as possible, please avoid making this misleading statement in the future.


Misleading? You're agreeing with me here. You can still carry and transmit it. You said it, I said it, I don't see the problem.

I don't think it is important to get the vaccine to as many people as possible. I think it is important to get the vaccine to those who think they should take it, especially vulnerable people like elderly people and people with comorbidities. Please don't tell me what to say, I'll say whatever I want thank you very much.


You didn't claim it was possible, you claimed it was a certainty:

> You would've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not

I will continue to call you out as long as you continue to purposely misinform people.


"You can still transmit the virus with the vaccine" was my statement.

Alright, I misspoke. You could've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not.

For you to attribute malintent claiming I'm purposefully misleading people is a bit ridiculous. All I'm doing is having a discussion on the internet with people and sharing my personal viewpoints. Quit telling people to shut up just because you disagree with them. With an arrogant mindset like that its not surprising that you think it is your place to make people get medical treatments against their will. Call me out some more.


You are quite obviously purposely misleading people, no one is obliged to be so credulous.


Obviously? If it is so obvious then tell me how. Misleading people, maybe, I could be wrong. I don't think I am, but I could be. Purposely? Show me how you came to that conclusion.

Also not a single one of you has answered my initial question, "selfish how?"


As I said, no one is required to be so credulous.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: