Group Generalisations and Standards
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
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?
Answers
3" 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.
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.
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.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course