Denial strategy # 6: Comparing

"Others are worse than me and that proves that I don’t have serious problems!"
 
     Types of arguments that enlist comparison usually entail the party on the defensive refocusing attention on others with similar or associated problems.  Denial through comparison can be recognized when someone uses others’ appalling practices as reasons why their substandard ones are favorable.  Examples of more serious examples are given and compared with the behavior of the accused party as rationalization via relative severity.  Since the current issue may seem minor in comparison, the target audience is encouraged to focus elsewhere. 

       This argument, at its core, attempts to redefine what constitutes a significant contribution to the problems being discussed; also referred to as “moving the goalposts”.  By distancing themselves from extreme examples the accused attempts to align with their accusers and distract the target audience from their contributions and responsibilities associated with them.  Proponents of this argument assert that they are sympathetic to the concerns of their accusers, but that their own behaviors are benign. 

         Clever practitioners of this strategy may even try to claim the moral high ground by stating that what their practices are more ethical than what others are doing and therefore criticism of them is somehow equivalent to the promotion of unethical practices.  By doing so they effectively hijack and distort the initial concerns of their accusers while rebranding their own behavior as a virtuous alternative, and therefore above reproach.  This is a clever tactic as it often refocuses the discussion on the accusers’ motivations and places them on the defensive.  In doing so, focus on the initial problem is delayed or avoided altogether.