- Mar 11, 2015
- 77,073
- 34,263
- 2,330
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such:
en.wikipedia.org
I use this to debate the claims of black racism being argued primarily by the right, but it also applies to any other non white group.
When it comes to issues of race and racism the use of false equivalences are prevalent in modern American society. The right wing chattering class has convinced their listeners that if someone black calls a white person white, that it is equal to using the n word and the over 240 years of derogatory comments/actions/laws/policies made by whites to deny equal rights and opportunity not only blacks, but to people of color in general.
In 1954, Gordon Alpert developed a theory of prejudice based on what is called contact hypothesis. To paraphrase what I learned in a very simple way is that prejudice comes from applying a broad brush to describe or stereotype an entire group of people based on a lack of information about that particular group. In America, we have information that shows 400 years of white racism. Given the record of racism by whites, we just cannot assume there are no whites who are racists. Blacks get called racists because we recognize American history’s information. Are we supposed to instinctively know which white person is a racist and which one is not? How do we identify this?
Irwin Katz, (1991). Gordon Allport’s “The Nature of Prejudice.” Political Psychology, 12(1), 125–157.https://doi.org/10.2307/3791349
The great false equivalence of black racism ignores the fact that you just can't substitute the word black for white and make things the same. The major problem with this opinion is that for the claim to be true or valid whites and blacks must have the same history. This has not been the case, whites have a history of oppressing people because they are not white, we have a history of being oppressed by whites. Therefore you can't just exchange the words white and black like everything has been the same. Then to expect that there will be no resentment from those who have faced white racism while whites can resent the fact that government made equal opportunity policies?
This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such:
False equivalence - Wikipedia
I use this to debate the claims of black racism being argued primarily by the right, but it also applies to any other non white group.
When it comes to issues of race and racism the use of false equivalences are prevalent in modern American society. The right wing chattering class has convinced their listeners that if someone black calls a white person white, that it is equal to using the n word and the over 240 years of derogatory comments/actions/laws/policies made by whites to deny equal rights and opportunity not only blacks, but to people of color in general.
In 1954, Gordon Alpert developed a theory of prejudice based on what is called contact hypothesis. To paraphrase what I learned in a very simple way is that prejudice comes from applying a broad brush to describe or stereotype an entire group of people based on a lack of information about that particular group. In America, we have information that shows 400 years of white racism. Given the record of racism by whites, we just cannot assume there are no whites who are racists. Blacks get called racists because we recognize American history’s information. Are we supposed to instinctively know which white person is a racist and which one is not? How do we identify this?
Irwin Katz, (1991). Gordon Allport’s “The Nature of Prejudice.” Political Psychology, 12(1), 125–157.https://doi.org/10.2307/3791349
The great false equivalence of black racism ignores the fact that you just can't substitute the word black for white and make things the same. The major problem with this opinion is that for the claim to be true or valid whites and blacks must have the same history. This has not been the case, whites have a history of oppressing people because they are not white, we have a history of being oppressed by whites. Therefore you can't just exchange the words white and black like everything has been the same. Then to expect that there will be no resentment from those who have faced white racism while whites can resent the fact that government made equal opportunity policies?
Last edited:
