Fallacy Spotted: Anti-Asian Hate

A big thank-you to everyone who liked the idea of a "Spot the Fallacy" game and weighed in with their support. I'm not sure how to answer my own challenge in a way that everyone can see it, so I'm creating a follow-up post.

As a refresher, here is the original posting:

----------

Example #1: "With the recent shooting at three spas in Atlanta, Georgia, in which eight women — six of whom were Asian — were killed, a similar dynamic appears to be at play, but on a significantly more serious scale. Days after the shooting, local law enforcement has yet to call this a hate crime ...

"The Atlanta killings come on the heels of a growing spate of anti-Asian attacks taking various forms...according to a study of police data released by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, hate crimes against Asian Americans in 16 US cities rose 149% in 2020 over the previous year. New York City saw an alarming 833% rise during the same period."

(Source: "How are the Atlanta spa shootings NOT a hate crime?" Euny Hong, CNN Opinion)

Example #2: "Throughout the pandemic, former president Donald Trump often referred to COVID-19 as the 'Chinese virus' and 'kung flu.' He argued that the terms weren’t racist.

"A newly released report from Stop AAPI Hate found that there were at least 3,795 reported hate incidents that targeted Asian Americans from March 19, 2020 — soon after the pandemic was declared — to Feb. 28."

(Source:  "Joe Biden And Kamala Harris Condemned The 'Scapegoating' Of Asian Americans After The Shooting In Atlanta," Ryan Brooks, BuzzFeed)

----------

I propose there are at least two fallacies in evidence above.

FALLACY #1

post hoc ergo propter hoc
cum hoc ergo propter hoc*

• Example #1 seems to be arguing that since the shooting occurred after/during a reported rise in hate against Asian Americans, it must be because of the rise in hate against Asian Americans.
• Example #2 is suggesting that because hate incidents against Asian Americans reportedly increased after/during President Trump's use of the term "Chinese virus," his use of that term must be a cause.
• Example #2 is also suggesting that because there were at least 3,795 hate incidents reported against Asian Americans during the pandemic, the pandemic must be a cause of these incidents.

(The cum hoc fallacy is like the post hoc fallacy except it means "with the fact" instead of "after the fact." In other words, it's the fancy Latin logical fallacy way of saying: correlation is not causation.)

FALLACY #2

cherry picking

• Example #1 reports that "hate crimes against Asian Americans in 16 US cities rose 149% in 2020 over the previous year." The article doesn't provide the hate crime statistics for the other 19,000+ cities in the US. Were they also generally up? Were they flat? Were they down in more cities than they were up? Others sources suggest this statistic was based on a study of major cities only, which is also a form of the cherry picking.
  
  
• Example #2 reports that "there were at least 3,795 reported hate incidents that targeted Asian Americans from March 19, 2020 — soon after the pandemic was declared — to Feb. 28." Compared to what? Is that above average compared to previous years? On par? Lower? From another article I read, the answer is they don't actually know because 2020 was the first year Stop AAPI Hate gathered these statistics.

Feel free to agree or disagree with me.

Example 1 seems to have unsupported claims and unspecified assumptions.

The "... local law enforcement has yet to call this a hate crime" statement implies that law enforcement should have called a hate crime or a bias crime ... leading to what appears to be a criticism of law enforcement.

The argument form seems to be:

Law enforcement should call it like it is. (probably an acceptable premise)

If it's a hate crime, law enforcement should call it a hate crime  (probably an acceptable premise)

I assume it's a hate crime, therefore I think law enforcement is wrong not to call it a hate crime  (probably an acceptable conclusion) ... but that's not exactly what the statement says!

However, as written, the implication is that law enforcement deserves criticism because the writer seems to assume the shooting to be a hate crime, turning the above conclusion into something more like:

The shooting was a hate crime and law enforcement is wrong not to call it one. (a less acceptable conclusion)

Of course the author of the statement does have some free passage ways to escape criticism ... the author never really said it was a hate crime and never really said law enforcement was in error ... all of that is left to the reader to infer .... I suggest, because of unidentified assumptions and unsupported claims.

(Of course, maybe it really was a hate crime and maybe law enforcement really is at fault.  It's just that nothing in the statement (argument) provides evidence that the assumptions or claims are correct.)