Guilt by Dissociation?

In a discussion about racism, I responded to a fake photo of the elderly Robert Byrd in KKK robes by noting that it is fake and pointing out that Byrd spent fifty years atoning for his racist past and that he was honored by the NAACP when he died.

The other party responded by pointing out that another group, the Center for New Black Leadership (which, he noted, "leans Republican"), doesn't like the NAACP because [usual claptrap].

In other words, he appeared to be trying to smear Byrd's reputation by pointing out that a second, seemingly related, group would have nothing to do with a first group that did not smear Byrd's reputation.

Is guilt by dissociation (or disassociation) so similar or parallel to guilt by association that it also is a fallacy? As he also had accused me of an ad hominem attack (guilt by association), I wonder in any case if he was trying to distance himself from being accused of such an attack himself.

First, your point about the NAACP honoring Byrd was nothing of an ad hominem. The fact of this directly refutes the photo in question.

As for the Guilt by Dissociation, let me attempt to make an argument using the same form:

Person 1: Climate change is a bunch of nonsense. I know the good people at globalclimatescam.com say so.
Person 2: The American Association for the Advancement of Science says that globalclimatescam.com is not reputable, therefore climate change is not nonsense.

Although we might agree with the conclusion person 2 is making, the conclusion is unwarranted, thus fallacious (bad reasoning). If we can discredit globalclimatescam.com, all we can conclude from this is that globalclimatescam.com is not a valid source; we cannot conclude anything about climate change. Ultimately, this is a form of non sequitur .

In your example, IF the other person is concluding (by implying) either a) the photo is real or b) Byrd is racist still, then their response is indeed fallacious. However, if their point was simply to discredit the NAACP as a reliable authority to what is or is not racist, then it would not be fallacious.

Robert C. Byrd, deceased former Congressman and long-time Senator from W.VA. has had a decidedly mixed record throughout a long and turbulent political career.

On the plus side, his efforts brought billions of taxpayer dollars into his home state of W.VA., greatly improving this state’s infrastructure, benefiting his constituents (only approximately three percent of which were African American).

His detractors point to his substantial involvement with the KKK in the 1940’s, in which he served as a recruiter, bringing at least 150 new members into the fold. He was also, like many remnants of the 1948 Southern Dixiecrats, highly opposed to passing Civil Rights Legislation and staged a 14-hr filibuster against said legislation in 1964, a Senate record. He also (late in his career) spoke the unfortunate term “White Ni*ger” for which he later apologized profusely.

IMOP, a balanced article concerning his life in office was published in WAPO in 2005, concurrent with the release of his autobiography: www.washingtonpost.com/wp. . .

Now, to the arguments: Your argument citing his “honoring” by the NAACP seems to contain the implicit message that a political group whose sole mission is devoted to the advancement and protection of People of Color would not ‘honor’ anyone who continued to harbor views of racism, and that Byrd in fact was someone who actively supported their cause and position on racial matters.

Your ‘other party’s’ counter-argument, citing the African-American political group, New Black Leadership, which “leans Republican” and opposes the NAACP, in my reading contains the sub-text view that the NAACP has lost sight of its original purpose and has become a political extension of the Democrat Party; thus, the ‘other party’s’ attempt to discredit it, i.e., NAACP support of a key Democrat Party stalwart becomes something less than meaningful.

[No direct linkage was cited between ’the other party’ and the fraudulent photo.]

In my view, both arguments are fallacious and suffer from attempted association fallacies, though Bo may be correct in calling it a non-sequitur. (I think these fallacies need not always be mutually exclusive.) Bottom line: Byrd’s record is available for all to research and analyze, and to draw conclusions from independently.

RE [No direct linkage was cited between ’the other party’ and the fraudulent photo.]
The other party posted the faked photo.

"Your argument citing his 'honoring' by the NAACP seems to contain the implicit message that a political group whose sole mission is devoted to the advancement and protection of People of Color would not ‘honor’ anyone who continued to harbor views of racism, and that Byrd in fact was someone who actively supported their cause and position on racial matters."
It seems reasonable to assume that the NAACP would not honor a modern-day racist. The honor would seem to be adequate evidence that Senator Byrd had made efforts to reform, as the NAACP, which had legitimate reasons to abhor his earlier racist actions, could have said either nothing or "Good riddance" upon his death. He did, in fact, evolve in his attitudes over the last fifty years of his life; I mentioned the NAACP honors as a sort of summary. I cited examples elsewhere; the other party hasn't responded to them.

I had hoped that my description of the scenario was clear enough to get a clear answer, so as to not have to go farther into the original discussion. The faked photo was part of a meme in which a photo of Hillary Clinton kissing the elderly Senator Byrd (which is real, as far as I know) is shown next to the faked photo, as if to "prove" that Secretary Clinton is a racist because she kissed a supposedly active racist. I suppose I took on too much duty by pointing out the error in the characterization of the elderly Senator Byrd as a racist as well as the error in the characterization of Secretary Clinton (according to the meme, which was the only evidence presented).

Welcome to my rabbit holes(s).

@David Franks
Per your reply, I think I was able to understand and accurately present your rationale embedded in your argument concerning the NAACP and Robert Byrd. You might want to re-read my response then decide for yourself whether, in your judgment, I was able to also capture the essence of your opponent’s (i.e., the other party’s) counter argument.

Then, one last question: In your view, how vigorous was the NAACP’s support of Robert Byrd through decades of re-election campaigns in both Congress and the Senate, i.e., WHILE HE WAS ALIVE? (While not absolute, the answer to this would seem to shed much light on the veracity of your respective arguments.)

[Also, it was unclear in your OP that 'the other party' posted the fraudulent photo (and the nexus to Hilliary Clinton) - thanks for clarifying.]