Question

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)

Group Generalisations and Standards

Another identity politics question. Sorry, and I know these are flamebait, but...I see this commonly used as a justification for treating members of groups differently. It starts with some vague generalisation of said group (e.g. their motives), and then concludes a different standard is necessary to judge them.

Example:

Molly:  Look at those anti-vax scum. Ha! Bunch of unwashed Karens, I'd say.

Horace:  So why is it that when the anti-vaxxers are white, they're "unwashed Karens", but when they're black, you show them sympathy?

Molly:  Because white people, as a group, have no reason to be anti-vax; Black people do. There is a long history of racism in the medical industry, culminating in the Tuskegee scandal, and in order to self-preserve Black individuals have adopted vaccine skepticism as an understandable defence against white supremacy.

Horace:  ...?

Essentially, Molly takes a much more generous tone with anti-vax people when they are black - with the reason that, due to historical concerns, it is more understandable when a black person is hesitant. On the other hand, white anti-vaxxers are essentially idiots (and probably racist) in her view. Horace, on the other hand, views them as equally ignorant.

This is part of a debate that has divided anti-racists recently - how to go about practicing 'anti-racism'. Colourblind antiracism was the default, but has now come under heavy criticism for "ignoring the lived experiences of people of colour", and trying to eliminate racism by ignoring it instead of...actually eliminating it. The prescription now is to "see colour" - as Molly is doing - by taking people's race and its associated experiences into account. 

Is her perspective correct? Or is she merely (and fallaciously) rationalising unfair racial bias by giving it a "socially just" spin?

asked on Thursday, Apr 15, 2021 01:23:49 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
3

I am not sure if there are any fallacies here. First, let's forget about the white saviors/allies and focus on Black people. The argument is essentially this:

In past generations, Black people have been experimented on by the medical community and they continue to be treated unfairly to this day by the medical community. Therefore, it is reasonable for Black people to be skeptical of COVID vaccines.

This isn't an experiment where Black people are singled out; in fact, COVID vaccines are going overwhelmingly to white populations because of inequity in healthcare. There are not special COVID vaccines for black people and white people. Given this reason at the very least, Black people have no rational basis to be any more skeptical of COVID vaccines than any other race.

Here is a good read/list related to this: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/20/948614857/race-and-the-roots-of-vaccine-skepticism

But sympathy is not about rationality. Trust/mistrust is largely arational. It is mostly an emotionally-based process that can override one's cognitive faculties. This means a level of sympathy can be extended to the Black community just like we can be sympathetic to anti-vaxxers (of any color) who lost a loved one to a rare vaccine side-effect. While I think Molly's reasoning is flawed as to why she has sympathy for Black anti-vaxxers, I don't think the sympathy itself is unwarranted.

answered on Thursday, Apr 15, 2021 03:07:54 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Dr. Richard writes:

Bo says: “...in fact, COVID vaccines are going overwhelmingly to white populations because of inequity in healthcare.” I do not accept this as fact. The vaccines are free. There is no inequality in obtaining them. And I agree we should all get vaccinated. I got both my shots in January. Perhaps it is time to stop biting into the race-bait.

posted on Friday, Apr 16, 2021 01:30:09 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Given this was a side note, I failed to be specific and accurate—my apologies. I used the blanket "inequity in healthcare" to account for all the factors related to the reasons the Black community has a more difficult time getting the vaccine. Don't confuse racial iniquities with racism. Racial inequities are often largely a result of socioeconomic status. The point is, if we see who are getting the vaccines by proportion of population, white people are getting more: (see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/05/us/vaccine-racial-disparities.html that explains the data well). "Black and Hispanic people in the United States are less likely than their white counterparts to have internet access reliable enough to make online appointments; to have work schedules flexible enough to take any available opening; and to have access to dependable transportation to vaccine sites, among other factors." Another good resource: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Apr 16, 2021 01:45:30 PM
...
0
Dr. Richard writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

 don’t want to beat this dead horse, and I am ever the skeptic, but I do differ with: “Black and Hispanic people in the United States are less likely than their white counterparts to have internet access reliable enough to make online appointments; to have work schedules flexible enough to take any available opening; and to have access to dependable transportation to vaccine sites, among other factors.”

Again, I disagree. For example:

Internet access. Even the illegal migrants all have cell phones, and many news videos show the homeless with cell phones. It sure looks to me like everyone has them and they can make appointments. If not, there are charitable organizations that make appointments for people who can’t use the internet. I don’t see this as an excuse. 

Work schedules. Most areas have 24/7 operations. I find it difficult to believe anyone cannot find an appointment. Therefore, I would need some evidence of this and not just some reporter mouthing it. 

Access to dependable transportation. All sorts of organizations have offered free transportation to those who need it. 

I have run into a lot of people who are not going to get vaccinated. I think they may not understand how the vaccines work, rather than be race-based. Skeptic magazine had a good piece intended for children, but also excellent for adults, in 2020.

https://shop.skeptic.com/junior-skeptic-77-the-honest-truth-about-vaccines that explains them very well. 

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Apr 16, 2021 02:07:29 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

I really can't go anywhere when you disagree with facts by citing opinions and personal anecdotes.

Fast and reliable Internet connections are strongly correlated with income (and therefore, race): https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/

Regarding availability, see https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fewer-black-americans-are-getting-the-covid-19-vaccine-no-its-not-hesitancy/

Lower pay, pay by the hour, jobs are less likely to allow paid time to get vaccinated let alone take a couple days to recover from the second shot. Black Americans are far more likely to have these jobs, and be in a position where they cannot miss any work, thus, at a disadvatnage.

All sorts of organizations have offered free transportation to those who need it. 

And this demonstrates the problem. Clearly, these services don't exist everywhere, in every community. People with the resources don't need to worry about hunting these services down and scheduling (if they are available in the community).

Again, all of this, and more, leads to the clear and obvious conclusion that it is more difficult to get the vaccine for people of lower socioeconomic status (who tend to be largely Black). And the real-time stats on race and population confirm all this.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Apr 16, 2021 02:24:55 PM
...
Jason Mathias
1

Seems like its more of a bias to me that creates a double standard  or a special pleading. Just because its understandable to her doesn't make their anti vaxx claims anymore true/false or any less harmful. 

This exchange begins with a personal attack against one group, and the question is why doesn't a different group get the same attack? The answer turns out to be an appeal to emotion created by a bias that creates a special pleading fallacy.  

answered on Thursday, Apr 15, 2021 03:11:32 PM by Jason Mathias

Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
richard smith
0

" Because white people, as a group, have no reason to be anti-vax; Black people do. There is a long history of racism in the medical industry, culminating in the Tuskegee scandal, and in order to self-preserve Black individuals have adopted vaccine skepticism" - I would say an appeal to probability . Historically this is true.

"as an understandable defense against white supremacy." -  I think It implies that "white supremacy" exist today at levels that exist before. Maybe an appeal to emotions, opinion, or at lest an hasty generalization. 

answered on Friday, Apr 16, 2021 08:58:47 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments