Symbolism Fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, social media, as usual, has been the usual rolling trainwreck of bad takes, questionable statements and unabashed grave dancing & celebrations of her death, due to the her position as British momarch and the legacy of the British Empire. The latter seems to be way more common online.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/09/irish-reaction-queen-death/
https://www.newsweek.com/why-black-twitter-fire-after-queen-elizabeth-second-death-1741410
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-elizabeths-death-revives-criticism-britains-legacy-colonialism-rcna46942
https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-dead-ireland-india-commonwealth-republic-1741243
The most common argument for celebrating her death is the symbol she provided for the British monarchy as well as claims that she upheld imperialism, colonialism and capitalism while she was on the throne. Events from before she was norn,
The argument goes something like this:
A: Elizabeth, as Queen, is a symbol of the British monarchy as well as the royal family.
B: The monarchy (the symbol) and the empire go hand in hand, therefore anything the empire did is on the hands of the monarchy.
X: The British Empire committed genocide/war crimes/famine/imperialism/colonialism under the monarchy, including the Irish Potato Famine, the Plantations, the famines in India, the Scramble for Africa and the Atlantic Slave Trade
Y: Regardless of time period, the actions of the empire and the symbol it provided via the monarchy still go hand in hand, therefore Elizabeth is a symbol of the actions of the empire.
Z: Therefore, since she is a symbol of a empire that did horrible things, Elizabeth is a war criminal/genocide supporter/murderer/wealth hoarder/supporter of slavery therefore it's morally justified to celebrate her death.
Answers
1The main argument here seems to be that QE was a "symbol" of the bad things the British Empire did. Admittedly, I am not even remotely knowledgeable on the actions of QE in her lifetime, but assuming those who don't like her, don't like her based on the actions of her predecessors, then we might be dealing with ad hominem (guilt by association) . The extent of the fallacy is based on how much control/influence she did have over the alleged negative actions committed. For example, it is far more fallacious if she is blamed for actions before her lifetime, but far more reasonable to be blamed for actions within her lifetime that she could have condemned but chose not to.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course