Slashdot Mirror

34. Success Immunity, or "They must be doing something right!"

We often hear this when a successful individual or organization is justly criticized for unethical habits, routines, tendencies or policies, and defenders recoil at the suggestion that a successful formula might be altered in any way. Thus have cruel hazing traditions by winning football coaches received official passes from greedy university presidents, and careless and risky management practices been ignored by voters, as long as an elected leader's policies haven't imploded yet. Success immunity is related to #10, the King's Pass, but it is even more illogical: it assumes that the wrongful and irresponsible aspects of an individual's or organization's conduct must somehow be part of a magic recipe for success, rather than a serious flaw in that recipe that can and should be removed. "The chef puts a roach in his soup? Well, it's delicious! He must be doing something right!" I'm sure he is, but that something isn't the roach. This rationalization embodies the popular and over-used conservative mantra, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The problems with that cliche are 1) things that aren't broken can still be improved, 2) things that are broken will often keep working until they fall apart and someone is hurt, and 3) "not broken" is a long way from "the best it can be." "They must be doing something right!" carries this illogic to the point of absurdity by asserting that what clearly is broken should still not be fixed, because the individual or organization continues to be successful in spite of it, on the Bizarro World theory that the perceived success could somehow be a result of it. Like many rationalizations on this list, Success Immunity twists common sense to avoid admitting that obviously unethical conduct is what it is: wrong.

It's significant if one considers the DOJ credible... you don't, apparently, but that's probably a minority opinion.

And we were, after all, talking about something that is damaging to society as a whole, so whether something is a minority opinion is actually probably pretty relevant.

But even if you doubt the DOJ's report, the ethical misconception remains:

8. The Trivial Trap or "No harm no foul!"

Many argue that if no tangible harm arises from a deception or other unethical act, it cannot be "wrong:" "No harm, no foul." This is truly an insidious fallacy, because it can lead an individual to disregard the unethical nature of an action, and look only to the results of the action. Before too long, one has embraced "the ends justify the means" as an ethical system, otherwise known as "the terrorism standard."

My point is only that according to the DOJ, drug abuse isn't victimless, and that even if nobody else did get harmed (it is baffling to me why you would think that is the case, but you're entitled to your opinion), the other point remains using that the standard of whether or not it hurts anyone else as the sole basis for whether something ought to be permitted can potentially lead one down a very dark and dangerous path.

Except drugs are not an entirely victimless crime.

Also, see Rationalization #8, The Trivial Trap (scroll about 10% of the way down, regretfully that page has no direct links to particular paragraphs).

On the excuse of "Everybody Does it", consider point #1 from ethicsalarms:

This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization. It is based on the flawed assumption that the ethical nature of an act is somehow improved by the number of people who do it, and if "everybody does it," then it is implicitly all right for you to do it as well: cheat on tests, commit adultery, lie under oath, use illegal drugs, persecute Jews, lynch blacks. Of course, people who use this "reasoning" usually don't believe that what they are doing is right because "everybody does it." They usually are arguing that they shouldn't be singled out for condemnation if "everybody else" isn't.

Since most people will admit that principles of right and wrong are not determined by polls, those who try to use this fallacy are really admitting misconduct. The simple answer to them is that even assuming they are correct, when more people engage in an action that is admittedly unethical, more harm results. An individual is still responsible for his or her part of the harm.

My point is not to compare bad variable naming practices to some of the objectively far more serious things mentioned above, but to simply note that commenting on how common something might be should not be a defense for doing it, when it is a bad practice in the first place.

It's 2018... coding editors are smart these days, and can easily complete longer variable names so longer names does not translate to an increase in typographical errors. In the end, a more legible name doesn't hurt anyone, and is no harder to read, with the benefit of being legible even to people who might not yet understand the full context of how the code is being used.

See rationalization #7.

See the explanations for rationalizations #2, #7 and #49.

Explain where it says that you have an entitlement to the content that you want simply by virtue of wanting it

Also, see rationilzation #25, the Coercion Myth:

When people say they had to behave unethically because they had no choice, it is almost always a lie. What they mean is that they didn't like the choices they had, and taking the unethical option involved less sacrifice, less controversy, less criticism, less effortâ¦in short, less courage, than doing the right thing. Ethics often requires pain; if making the ethical choice was easy, there would be no need to practice being ethical. You may decide that doing the right thing is too costly or requires more personal misery than you can bear - a lost job, a ruined reputation, financial capacity, punishment for breaking with tradition or rules - sometimes that is a reasonable choice. But you still had a choice, and you are still accountable for the choice you made.

If you don't agree with the ethics of copyright in the first place, then just admit that you don't care about intellectual property in the first place instead of hiding behind the notion that you didn't have a choice in the matter, because it's plainly obvious that you do.

Not hard to find out about Snopes political bias:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/...

Go google more yourself.

What I'm noticing is that you linked to a google search which returns only results from very dubious sources. The first link is to redstate.com, then dailycaller, then a Facebook link which is referencing worldtruth.tv, then yiannopoulos.net... These are exactly the sort of sites which Facebook is trying to catch here. The fact that they don't like snopes is not a mark against it.

Even Fox News is credible compared to that crap. You got anything from Fox News? Not that that would necessarily be convincing, but that should be your starting point when it comes to right-wing propaganda - if it's too ridiculous for even Fox News then you know you've really fallen down the rabbit hole.

Nice ad hominem bullshit response.

Why don't you address the particulars of the claims?

Like this one?!?!

This is what Snopes says:

Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.
        MOSTLY FALSE

        WHAT’S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant.

        WHAT’S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant’s lawyer, she did not laugh about the the case’s outcome, she did not assert that the complainant “made up the rape story,” she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not “free” the defendant.

Notice how Snopes moved the goalposts there in order to say the claim was "mostly false", despite every portion of the claim being 100% factually true:

Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections don’t match the claim. That’s because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy game of moving the goalposts and using straw men. The claim, as stated by Snopes, is 100% true.

Clinton did successfully defend her client; very successfully, in fact. Getting a beneficial plea bargain that is the best outcome a client can hope for is a successful defense. LaCapria is displaying her ignorance. Acquittal isn’t the only successful defense outcome.

Clinton also laughed about the case. ...

Again - Snopes is biased bullshit.

Al Gore never claimed he invented the internet.

BWAAA HAAA HAAA!

Snopes?!?!?!

Can you say "Fake news!"

Hell, just Google "Snopes is wrong"

Snopes is as trustworthy as Politico after their chief investigative reporter sends their clinton articles to the DNC for revision. They can't even get basic things correct, and when it's something to the contrary to their viewpoint they still label it as fake. Even when their own links prove otherwise.

That study is presented in a fundamentally dishonest way. 0 TLDR version: It's deceitful to label that disagrees with any portion of the alarmist agenda (disliking a carbon tax for example) as a climate change denier. Taking all groups that fit under that broad category and totaling all of their funding regardless of what percent actually goes to climate issue magnifies the deceit.