4 ms·

In 2003, I remember studying fallacies in English class. I literally had an outbreak of laughter during an exercise where the prompt was: “vote for me or admit

by dfee 6y ago

In 2003, I remember studying fallacies in English class. I literally had an outbreak of laughter during an exercise where the prompt was: “vote for me or admit you’re racist”. It seemed so ridiculous to teenage me that such a thing could be said. In 2020 it has been said. I’m no longer falling out of my seat laughing.

amalcon 6y ago
You must not have been paying attention at the time. I was literally told "Vote for X or you are a traitor", which is the same fallacy, in 2003.
kriskrunch 6y ago
I know this as the Kafka trap fallacy. "A Kafka trap is a fallacy where if someone denies being x it is taken as evidence that the person is x since someone who is x would deny being x. The name is derived from the novel The Trial by the Austrian writer Franz Kafka." Source: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > A Kafka trap is a fallacy where if someone denies being x it is taken as evidence that the person is x I think this concept is better known under the name "witch hunt".
- pcwelder 6y ago
  Also related to the fallacy of false dichotomy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
andrepd 6y ago
Who has said it?
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Hillary Clinton, several ways; though most famously in the Basket of Deplorables monologue.
- dfee 6y ago
  Here’s another variant, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black," Joe Biden, May 22, 2020 https://www.npr.org/2020/05/22/861007175/biden-pulls-back-on-cavalier-remarks-about-black-voters https://www.npr.org/2020/05/22/861007175/biden-pulls-back-on...
MereInterest 6y ago
One part of mathematics that I rather like is figuring out how to phrase a statement as precisely as possible. (For me, this is also what differentiates good philosophy from bad philosophy.) I've been struggling with the best way to interpret the 2016 election results, especially with the 2020 election coming up. The most precise way to phrase it is as follows: For each person who voted for Trump in 2016, at least one of the following statements is true. (A) The person was uninformed as to Trump's character. (B) The person was actively being misinformed as to Trump's character, in such a way that correct information was not believed. (C) The person did not believe that racism was a disqualifying factor for office. Whether this statement reduces to the "vote for X or admit to being racist" depends on several additional statements that I don't think can be entirely stated. First, it asserts that (A) is false, that the amount of media coverage in an election is enough that no voters are uninformed. Second, it asserts that (B) is false, that there was no active misinformation being spread during the 2016 election. Given what we know now, (B) is most certainly true in some cases. Third, it asserts that (C) is equivalent to a person being racist, which is a valid position, but one that is harder to discuss without getting into the nuances of systemic racism.
- zepto 6y ago
  The primary fallacy is that racism is a Boolean value of some sort.
  - zarathustreal 6y ago
    Wow I’m actually amazed, you replied the exact words that came to my mind when I read the parent comment above you. Kudos.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    I agree that racism is a spectrum, spanning anywhere from microagressions that contribute to systemic racism, to overt dismissals of human rights. Generally, the term "racist" is used to mean "exists further than X on the scale of racism". Whether or not somebody is racist by virtue solely of voting for a blatantly racist candidate is a matter of discussion for where that line of X is, and is covered under my comment about option (C). This also gets into the point where racism will continue to exist so long as "not racist" is seen as one end of the spectrum. Rather, in order to be appropriately egalitarian, one must be anti-racist wherever society is racist.
lalaland1125 6y ago
I'm pretty sure that "vote for me or admit you're racist" is not necessarily a fallacy. It seems reasonable to conclude that through rather straightforward logic. Assumption 1. If you are not a racist then you should not support racist policies. Assumption 2. The opposition wants to enact racist policies while I do not. Proposition 3. From 2, if you vote for my opposition then you are supporting racist policies. Theorem 4. Therefore, from 3 and 1, if you don't vote for me then you are racist because you are supporting racist policies. Assumptions 1 and 2 could be incorrect in certain circumstances (in particular assumption 2), but the reasoning is correct.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  This argument assumes that supporting racist policies is racist. That may seem tautological, but consider: someone holds a gun to my head and threatens to kill me if I don't vote for the opposition. Am I racist for voting for the opposition? That may seem extreme, but what if candidate #1 is racist, but candidate #2 has vowed to eliminate funding for medical care I need to live and can't afford on my own? Is voting for #1 racist?
  - rahimiali 6y ago
    In both cases you’re still racist, assuming the power gradient flows from you to the underprivileged group. You are willing to put your self interest ahead of others. This is ok. You can just say “I’m sorry, self interest demands I be racist”. Germans joined the Nazi party so they could be eligible for good jobs. They say things like this about their grand parents to this day.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      If the desire to save one's own life at the expense of an underprivileged group is racist, I'm going to go out on a limb and say nearly everyone is racist.
xenocyon 6y ago
I'm not clear how your anecdote is germane to the topic.

by dfee 6y ago

amalcon 6y ago

You must not have been paying attention at the time. I was literally told "Vote for X or you are a traitor", which is the same fallacy, in 2003.

kriskrunch 6y ago

I know this as the Kafka trap fallacy. "A Kafka trap is a fallacy where if someone denies being x it is taken as evidence that the person is x since someone who is x would deny being x. The name is derived from the novel The Trial by the Austrian writer Franz Kafka." Source: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> A Kafka trap is a fallacy where if someone denies being x it is taken as evidence that the person is x I think this concept is better known under the name "witch hunt".
pcwelder 6y ago
Also related to the fallacy of false dichotomy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

andrepd 6y ago

Who has said it?

microcolonel 6y ago
Hillary Clinton, several ways; though most famously in the Basket of Deplorables monologue.
dfee 6y ago
Here’s another variant, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black," Joe Biden, May 22, 2020 https://www.npr.org/2020/05/22/861007175/biden-pulls-back-on-cavalier-remarks-about-black-voters https://www.npr.org/2020/05/22/861007175/biden-pulls-back-on...

MereInterest 6y ago

One part of mathematics that I rather like is figuring out how to phrase a statement as precisely as possible. (For me, this is also what differentiates good philosophy from bad philosophy.) I've been struggling with the best way to interpret the 2016 election results, especially with the 2020 election coming up. The most precise way to phrase it is as follows: For each person who voted for Trump in 2016, at least one of the following statements is true. (A) The person was uninformed as to Trump's character. (B) The person was actively being misinformed as to Trump's character, in such a way that correct information was not believed. (C) The person did not believe that racism was a disqualifying factor for office. Whether this statement reduces to the "vote for X or admit to being racist" depends on several additional statements that I don't think can be entirely stated. First, it asserts that (A) is false, that the amount of media coverage in an election is enough that no voters are uninformed. Second, it asserts that (B) is false, that there was no active misinformation being spread during the 2016 election. Given what we know now, (B) is most certainly true in some cases. Third, it asserts that (C) is equivalent to a person being racist, which is a valid position, but one that is harder to discuss without getting into the nuances of systemic racism.

zepto 6y ago
The primary fallacy is that racism is a Boolean value of some sort.
- zarathustreal 6y ago
  Wow I’m actually amazed, you replied the exact words that came to my mind when I read the parent comment above you. Kudos.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  I agree that racism is a spectrum, spanning anywhere from microagressions that contribute to systemic racism, to overt dismissals of human rights. Generally, the term "racist" is used to mean "exists further than X on the scale of racism". Whether or not somebody is racist by virtue solely of voting for a blatantly racist candidate is a matter of discussion for where that line of X is, and is covered under my comment about option (C). This also gets into the point where racism will continue to exist so long as "not racist" is seen as one end of the spectrum. Rather, in order to be appropriately egalitarian, one must be anti-racist wherever society is racist.

lalaland1125 6y ago

I'm pretty sure that "vote for me or admit you're racist" is not necessarily a fallacy. It seems reasonable to conclude that through rather straightforward logic. Assumption 1. If you are not a racist then you should not support racist policies. Assumption 2. The opposition wants to enact racist policies while I do not. Proposition 3. From 2, if you vote for my opposition then you are supporting racist policies. Theorem 4. Therefore, from 3 and 1, if you don't vote for me then you are racist because you are supporting racist policies. Assumptions 1 and 2 could be incorrect in certain circumstances (in particular assumption 2), but the reasoning is correct.

aidenn0 6y ago
This argument assumes that supporting racist policies is racist. That may seem tautological, but consider: someone holds a gun to my head and threatens to kill me if I don't vote for the opposition. Am I racist for voting for the opposition? That may seem extreme, but what if candidate #1 is racist, but candidate #2 has vowed to eliminate funding for medical care I need to live and can't afford on my own? Is voting for #1 racist?
- rahimiali 6y ago
  In both cases you’re still racist, assuming the power gradient flows from you to the underprivileged group. You are willing to put your self interest ahead of others. This is ok. You can just say “I’m sorry, self interest demands I be racist”. Germans joined the Nazi party so they could be eligible for good jobs. They say things like this about their grand parents to this day.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    If the desire to save one's own life at the expense of an underprivileged group is racist, I'm going to go out on a limb and say nearly everyone is racist.

xenocyon 6y ago

I'm not clear how your anecdote is germane to the topic.