A racy issue...

I had a conversation recently which blew my mind. Friend says, "I am not voting for Joe Biden because he is white". I reply, "But that's racist". He explained to me that racism means systemic racism of a powerful group over a less powerful group. Racism equals prejudice plus power. My friend is not a member of the dominant class (white people), therefore he is not racist when he passes over Joe Biden because he is white.

I looked up the definition of racism on Websters.

Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Definition 2b is roughly the one my friend described but my friend is racist by definition 3. I think there are many things wrong with my friends reasoning but I wanted to focus on one fallacy I see in particular: The fallacy of division.

Fallacy of Division: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole.

I think my friend is trying to apply the definition of racism perpetrated by groups when the definition of racism perpetrated by individuals is more appropriate. He is basically arguing, "Only systems of oppression can be racist. I am not a system of oppression, therefore I am not racist. "

Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)
argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)

Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.

Logical Form:

Person 1 states that Y is true.

Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.

Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.

Example #1:

Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically.

Explanation: Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious.

Example #2:

Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was against religion, and he was a very bad man. Frankie is against religion; therefore, Frankie also must be a very bad man.

Explanation: The fact that Pol Pot and Frankie share one particular view does not mean they are identical in other ways unrelated, specifically, being a very bad man. Pol Pot was not a bad man because he was against religion, he was a bad man for his genocidal actions.

Exception: If one can demonstrate that the connection between the two characteristics that were inherited by association is causally linked, or the probability of taking on a characteristic would be high, then it would be valid.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was genocidal; therefore, he was a very bad man. Frankie is genocidal; therefore, Frankie must also be a very bad man.

References:

Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.

This is a common attempt to redefine a term. Racism is a concept in my area of specialty - social psychology. It is well understood as the inherent superiority of a particular race. There are attempts to redefine it, but it won't fly in mainstream academia. Even if racist minorities attempt to change the definition to exclude them, the concept of a bigoted asshole knows no race or gender. Prejudice is prejudice. It never excluded people based on the color of their skin and never will. The definition may change, but the concept will live on.

{date-time stamp}Friday, May 03, 2019 09:46 AM{/date-time stamp}

I also want to present a reductio to this idea that the dominate group cannot be racist or only the group with power can be racist. Just imagine in the not too distant future when leadership in this country is diverse enough in that all major groups are being represented proportionally and it is agreed that whites no longer have the "power." Or what happens when mixed-race outnumber whites? Do all Nazi parties cease to be racist at that point? We can see that no longer considering Nazis "racist" is absurd under these conditions. Refusing to label any non-white "racist" for the same reasons is also absurd.

Hi, Jacob!


As soon as a person attempts to persuade you of their position by giving a definition for a word, your red flag should go up. Your red flag did go up and you later learned that your friend had supported his innocence by appealing to an incorrect definition of “racism”. By attempting to support the conclusion with a premise that incorrectly defines a word, your friend’s argument for his innocence commits the fallacy that is sometimes called “incorrect definition”. This fallacy is a specific form of question-begging.

Your friend’s argument for his innocence does not commit the fallacy of division, however, and this can be realized after grasping the definition of division, which you provide.


Thank you, Jacob.

From, Kaiden

F: I am not voting for Joe Biden because he is white.
Y: But that's racist.
F: P1: Racism means systemic racism of a powerful group over a less powerful group.
P2: Racism equals prejudice plus power.
P3: I am not a member of the dominant class (white people),
C: Therefore, I am not racist when he passes over Joe Biden because he is white.

You have also showed the official definitions of Racism which are in short "prejudice on grounds of race". The definition does not necessitate a group for it to be racism.

So I see multiple fallacies.

1. Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)
argumentum ad hominem

Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.

Logical Form:

Person 1 states that Y is true.

Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.

Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.

Example #1:

Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically.

Explanation: Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious.

2. Definist Fallacy
(also known as: persuasive definition fallacy, redefinition)

Description: Defining a term in such a way that makes one’s position much easier to defend.

Logical Form:

A has definition X.

X is harmful to my argument.

Therefore, A has definition Y.

Example #1:

Before we argue about the truth of creationism, let’s define creationism as, “The acceptance of a set of beliefs even more ridiculous than those of flat-earthers.”

Example #2:

Before we argue about the truth of creationism, let’s define evolution as, “Faith in a crackpot theory that is impossible to prove with certainty.”

Explanation: It should be clear by the two examples who is defending what position. Both arguers are taking the opportunity to define a term as a way to take a cheap shot at the opponent. In some cases, they might actually hope their definition is accepted, which would make it very easy to defend, compared to the actual definition.

3. It could also be a variant of the "Identity Fallacy" but I am not completely sure about this one.
(also known as: identity politics)

Description: When one's argument is evaluated based on their physical or social identity, i.e., their social class, generation, ethnic group, gender or sexual orientation, profession, occupation or subgroup when the strength of the argument is independent of identity.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes argument X.

Person 2 dismisses argument X because of the physical or social identity of person 1.

Example #1:

S.J. Sam: Asian people in this country are systematically passed over in the tech field for non-Asians.

Cindy: Actually, according to most research, employers are biased in favor of Asian technical workers.

S.J. Sam: Unless you are Asian, keep your mouth shut. You can't possibly know the struggles of the Asian community!

Explanation: S.J. Sam is making an empirical claim about a hiring preference for non-Asians. Cindy has refuted the claim that is independent of her physical or social identity (i.e., her ability to refute the argument is not dependent upon her being Asian). S.J. Sam rejects her rebuttal because she is not Asian. In addition, he pulls a red herring by changing the argument to "knowing the struggles" of the Asian community.

Example #2:

The female staff of a large corporation holds a meeting to discuss solutions to reduce discrimination against women at the company. Men are invited but asked just to listen and not contribute to the discussion.

Explanation: The implication here is that men have nothing to add to the discussion. Ideas to reduce gender discrimination are independent of gender, that is, both men and women can have equally valid arguments.

Exception: A requirement for this fallacy is "when the strength of the argument is independent of identity." There are arguments that do rely on identity. For example, claims of feeling and perception could be unique to certain groups.

S.J. Sam: As a gay man, I feel that I am being discriminated against at work.

Cindy: I don't think people at work discriminate against gays.

S.J. Sam: You are not gay. I bet your perspective would be different if you were.

Cindy could ask for evidence of discrimination, which would be reasonable, but she dismisses S.J. Sam's claim when she lacks the insight due to her not being part of the social group (gays).