That said some of the socialists parties here in Denmark made ending that kind of discrimination part of their election reform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
> Edit: for the clown who accused me of "fallacy of relative privation
edit: sorry, no. It's easy to work out, but as a matter of policy I don't enter into serious debates with people who casually throw around words like "clown". I find that it's not usually worth the attempt.
Please don't do this on HN. Stock snide responses, like this one or LMGTFY, are a way of insulting someone while ostensibly answering them. That violates the HN call for civility.
> sorry, no. It's easy to work out, but as a matter of policy I don't enter into serious debates with people who
Obviously dudul was wrong to call you names, but these comments were worse. Subtle insults do more damage to the discourse than crude ones do. Please reply respectfully.
The difference is:
Fallacy: "What about Y. X isn't a big deal as long as Y is an issue."
Not Fallacy: "What about Y. Y isn't a big deal because A, B, and C. A, B, and C also apply to X, so shouldn't that mean X isn't an issue as well."
The problem comes in that the second sentence in each scenario is left shortened if not completely left out, making it hard to tell which version of 'What about' a person is using.