Gone with the wind
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Some video streaming platforms have taken away temporarily the classic film Gone with the wind due to the recent racial tensions in the US. People is saying that based on the same logic other films that show other human atrocities like wars, animal cruelty, stereotyping, etc. should be also taken away.
Is this a Fallacy of False Equivalence because we are not considering the current context, oversimplifying the comparisons and not considering the additional factors that are happening?
Thanks
Comments on Question
Answers
3You might be assuming the fascist liberals involved in this "cancel culture" are logically adept. You would be wrong......haha
So if the argument is:
1. Gone with the Wind has been removed from streaming services due to the racial tensions in the US.
2. We want to be logically consistent.
C. Therefore, other films that show other human atrocities like wars, animal cruelty, stereotyping, etc. should be also taken away.
Most glaring is the Non Sequitur since the conclusion mentions nothing of racial tensions and lists other issues. I wouldn't call this a False Equivalence because, at least in this instance, there isn't even an appearance of equivalence, but this might be spitting hairs. I can see how the spirit of the fallacy is there.
To analyze this, we have to know the argument of the services. We don't know what is the specific objection is, but we will know once they re-release with their disclaimers. One possible objection is depicting a war profiteer, Rhett Butler, as gallant, charming, downright chivalrous. Another might be depicting the Confederacy as a noble cause, and confederates as decent people defending their homeland. Another is the depiction of slavery as not that bad, that the slaves in the movie are well treated and seem to live comfortable lives, despite all relevant evidence to the contrary. I will go with the latter objection as the reason they pulled the movie.
If that is the case, then there are a couple of possible logical fallacies I can think of, from both "sides" of the argument. The services seem to make the composition/division fallacy that because this depiction is wrong the whole movie is wrong, or deleterious to society. They also seem to be operating under the assumption that viewers can't determine the truth - this is a fictional movie (this seems like a logical fallacy, but I can't name it). And the slippery slope fallacy is applied by those who oppose the withholding of the movie, assuming that this will cancel many other movies as well, for which there is no evidence yet.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Just curious... doesn't this logic elude to a back-ended "slippery slope" logic? It seems like this is implied:
If the streaming service is pulling down one movie based on its content, then all other movies with similar content would therefore have to be removed similarly. And since that doesn't make any sense, the original offending movie should therefore remain.
Obviously the scope of the context of the content is being dramatically broadened far beyond the streaming service's original intent which is removing racially offending material. The broadening is now to essentially any and all similar content.