It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I seem to run across arguments that are structured like so:
1. X hates Y
2. It is hypocritical of X to hate Y and not also hate Z.
3. Therefore Y is not as bad as X believes it to be, or fine altogether.
Why is this argument so popular? A little examination destroys it.
Comments
Could you please provide an example?
Okay, Pewdiepie is a popular personality on youtube. A group of people got together and made a video entitled "Adults react to Pewdiepie" making fun of what they percieved as Pewdie's low-quality videos, repetitive humor, annoying antics, and constant rape jokes. In retaliation, a Pewdiepie fan made a post on a fan tumblr arguing that since the video contained self-harm and suicide jokes, it was also bad, and then made the nonsensical conclusion that Pewdiepie should not be criticized.
There is also the common "Hitler killed people, but Stalin killed more people and that's why I'm okay with being a white supremacist" thing.
So, basically, appeal to less bad.
Too bad the "Adults Watch Pewdie-Pie" video was funny.
Also, what so many fans of the video don't get is that it was insulting Pewdiepie for not being funny, not for making rape jokes.
Pewdiepie is literally the least funny person I have ever seen.
If you've gone to high school that is a lie. There is always some fucker who thinks they are 100 times more humorous than they actually are.
-sneezes-
Okay
least funny public person.
Happy?
Never. It is my sacred duty to keep the flames of my anger stoked so the volcanoes in the Ring of Fire continue to burn.
Volcanoes do not have fire in them.
And it's worse when it's one of the teachers. Who keeps forgetting his jokes and repeating them a week later, expecting them to still be as funny. And finds a pun on your name to use over and over. So glad he retired last year so I didn't have to deal with him again.