Spot the Fallacy: 'The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind'

Jordan Pine hasn't posted his game in a while, so I thought I'd indulge (forgive the recent excess of posts on my part!)

I came across this very interesting piece by Katie Herzog on Substack. The relevant part starts shortly after the image of the poster detailing a university event. In that section, Herzog interviews Dr Aruna Khilanani, a forensic psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, about racism. In it, Khilanani makes several generalisations about whites, prompting this exchange:

KH: So you don’t think that you are generalizing?

AK: This idea that I’m the one generalizing is actually defensive. Do I really believe on some level that every single white person is racist? No. Clearly. I have one percent left of that friend group. [In the lecture, Dr. Khilanani explains she has cut most of her white friends out of her life.] So no, I don’t. At the same time, I'm saying how it functions psychologically when someone says “You can’t say that,” and “Not all of us,” what you’re saying subconsciously is “I’m the exception to what you just said and you made me feel like I'm a racist and I don't experience myself that way. I do not want to experience myself as a racist and I'm going to turn the tables on you and say you're the racist because you're generalizing and that’s what a racist does."

Hmm...she does not appear to answer the question. In fact, she turns it on Herzog, suggesting that her reaction is merely a cop-out to avoid confronting some sort of uncomfortable truth.

Any fallacies?

“You can’t say that” is an interesting and common phrase, which I have seen work as a thought-terminating cliche or semantic stop sign before.  But in this particular case cited, it appears to be intended as a warning flag  followed quickly by affixing a label of racist to the interviewer, who probably felt the unexpected condemnation like a slap in the face.   Although there are indisputable ad hominem  qualities to this sudden verbal assault, I thought taken in its  entirety, may conform to the  hasty generalization fallacy.  I also found elements of a self-sealing argument  in the manner with which the psychologist turned tables on her surprised interviewer.

 AK's statement: "This idea that I’m the one generalizing is actually defensive", is an Ad Hominem fallacy — specifically Appeal to Motive .  The Ad Hominem also has a psychological aspect: stating that KH has the character flaw of trying to cover up a weak position. This extends the Ad Hominem to a second fallacy:

AK's statement: "how it functions psychologically when someone says “You can’t say that, .,.. etc", is  an Appeal to Authority, namely herself as a psychologist. This fallacious appeal was suggested  in the original Ad Hominem — "being defensive" — but is made more obvious here.