How to spot and avoid the "No True Scotsman" fallacy

[Aloisius]

@Skeptic

However, I’m not actually convinced.

Group: Racists - people who discriminate based on race. No True Scotsman Fallacy: Blacks cannot be “True Racists”.

Hmm. I admit, I was largely responding to the recursive No True Scotsman accusation which would require redefining what a the No True Scotsman fallacy was without considering if what started it all was indeed a No True Scotsman fallacy.

(wow this is meta)

I actually agree with you, but for a different reason. It is easier to see if we rewrite it in the more classic form of a No True Scotsman fallacy:

Person 1: All Black people are not racist
Person 2: (Point out an example of a Black person who is racist)
Person 1: All True Black people are not racist

In this case, who is Black would need to be modified to exclude anyone who is racist. Even though who is Black changes depending on where you are in the world so it in itself is subjective, there is no objective reason in any definition I’m aware of why someone would stop being Black if they became racist.

That said, I’m not sure if you actually have a No True Scotsman fallacy until you make the counter-assertion to move the goalposts. So if someone just says “Black people can’t racist,” they haven’t yet committed the No True Scotsman fallacy until they redefine what being Black is to exclude an example of a person who is both Black and racist.

[Skeptic]

@Aloisius

Person 1: All Black people are not racist
Person 2: (Point out an example of a Black person who is racist)
Person 1: All True Black people are not racist

Hmm…

[Wanderfound]

You’ve shifted the locus of “true” from “racist” to “black people”.

“People who are racist can’t be truly black” is not the same as “people who are black can’t be truly racist”.

(just noting a point; I’m with the “colloquial and sociological definitions differ” faction on this one)

[Aloisius]

@Wanderfound

You’ve shifted the locus of “true” from “racist” to “black people”.

I considered writing the inverse as well, but it is awkward to think of Racists as a group with membership somehow.

Person 1: All Racists are not Black
Person 2: (Point out an example of a Racist who is Black)
Person 1: All True Racists are not Black

As long as you can point out an example of someone who is objectively Racist who is Black (say, Yahweh ben Yahweh), then it seems clear it fits the No True Scotsman fallacy since you redefined what Racists were to exclude the counterexample.

That said, you still have to have the denial of counterexamples for it to be an example of the fallacy. Someone just saying, “black people can’t be racist” is just an assertion.

[anon15383236]

@anansi133

My favorite example of this, is when a black person claims that black people are immune from being racist, they can’t participate in racism, the worst they can be is a bigot.

Why is it your favorite?

Just wondering what it is about that one that makes you love it above all other (supposed) examples…

[anon47741163]

…because I was hearing this and having a problem with it long before I had ever heard of the no true Scotsman fallacy. When the fallacy was made known to me, I recognized it as something I’d seen before.

[anon15383236]

Okay, so given the discussion above, and since you brought it up in the first place, do you still the think “problem” with saying “No black people can be racist” is that it’s an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

I’m also wondering, are you with @Wanderfound and others above (including me actually) who believe that the colloquial and sociological definitions of “racism” differ? If so, what does that distinction do to your thoughts about whether your example, “No black people can be racist,” fits the fallacy in question?

[anon47741163]

If racism is strictly a power thing, that powerless people cannot be guilty of it, that invites further dissection of what “power” means. It bothers me when someone implies that being born black is a life sentence of powerlessness, it reminds me of some of the crazy things Andrea Dworkin says about men and women.

A more commonsense approach to defining power, holds that everyone has some, whether it’s the ability to choose to smile at one’s jailor every, or deciding who to play with on the playground, or simply the physical ability to vote. Not everyone has the same amount, to be sure, but to arbitrarily draw some kind of line based on skin color, and to declare that only people on one side of the line have it, smells a lot like defining Scotsman in a particular way. Especially when a prominent black person has been our head of state now for 7 years!

The other problematic angle to “black people can’t be racist” is the implication that racism against black people, by white people, is the only kind of racism that is meant by the word racism. There’s a very American tendency to ignore any social developments that don’t happen here, and the racism practiced by the chinese against tibetans, for example, or the racism practiced by Jews against palistinians, should not be automatically exempted from the word racism. (If you try to bring up racial bigotry between jewish people and black people, I suppose we’d be back to comparing the relative degree of power held by these groups)

…all of which is very much worth discussion! Hell, if people want to talk about “American Racism”, and how it compares and contrasts with European racism or racism in Asia, that’d be a useful distinction I think.

The cause of racial equality is well served when no one thinks themselves immune. I try my hardest to cop to my own racist assumptions when someone calls me out on it. But if you or I or any white person of good conscience can be expected to hold our own values as suspect, it strikes me as dishonest to let a potential debate partner get away with saying they can’t be racist because they are black.

I suppose the question of whether black identity can be fairly compared with Scottish identity, is a ticklish question that I don’t have the mental energy for right now. But it’s a fair question, and maybe the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is not the best frame for what’s wrong with, “black people can’t be racist”

[daneel]

@anansi133

black people can’t be racist

If this were a no true Scotsman fallacy, there’d be people saying “x isn’t a real black person, because no black person would say anything racist”. Does anyone do that?

I think you’re talking about the varying definitions of racism, which is a different thing.

[anon47741163]

I’m not sure I understand your first question.

I acknowledge a difference between the way racism is used colloquially and the way it’s used academically, but that itself is a problem (unrelated, I think, to this logical fallacy) …which seems related to the problem of white people trying to have conversations about racism, who try to serve that goal by omitting black people from the group.

Keye and Peal are having a great time making comedy about the difference between the English language as used by white people, vs the way it’s uses by black people. And Larry Wilmore has really been growing on me, he started off sounding very “white” to my ears, but the more he riffs on racial tension, the more trustworthy he seems. What these comedians are doing that I agree with, are messing with the language in way that makes us uncomfortable. Kinda like when court jesters are allowed to speak the truth and live.

Bottom line: it often seems to me that the people arguing for fairness, for justice, are the ones getting the short end of the stick. It truly rare to hear from people like Nick Hanauer, arguing against their own financial interests. If the academic and street versions of the word “racism” could be made to converge, we’d ll be a lot better off.

[anon47741163]

It’s not “black” that’s being redefined the way scotsman is redefined, it’s “racist”.

[anon15383236]

@anansi133

If racism is strictly a power thing, that powerless people cannot be guilty of it, that invites further dissection of what “power” means. It bothers me when someone implies that being born black is a life sentence of powerlessness,

Now you’ve wandered into strawman territory. No one who says “Black people can’t be racist” would also say that a very different thing: that simply being born black is a life sentence of powerlessness. Black men obviously are empowered in terms of gender. Black parents have power over their children. Rich black people have power over poor people. Obviously.

@anansi133

maybe the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is not the best frame for what’s wrong with, “black people can’t be racist”

Ah, finally. Now let’s just get rid of that “maybe.”

@anansi133

I acknowledge a difference between the way racism is used colloquially and the way it’s used academically, but that itself is a problem (unrelated, I think, to this logical fallacy) …which seems related to the problem of white people trying to have conversations about racism, who try to serve that goal by omitting black people from the group.

Okay, you acknowledge the difference, but you don’t seem to understand it. Seems to me that if you did, you wouldn’t see it as a problem that in the terms commonly used in one context, certain black people can be considered racist, and in the terms used in the other, they can’t.

@anansi133

Bottom line: it often seems to me that the people arguing for fairness, for justice, are the ones getting the short end of the stick. It truly rare to hear from people like Nick Hanauer, arguing against their own financial interests.

Well, I do agree with that, but I can’t see what it has to do with claims in different contexts that black people can’t be racist.

[anon73430903]

But “no true scotsman” is

No [person from group] has [undesirable attribute]

[person from group] has [undesirable attribute]

No true [person from group] has [undesirable attribute]

it is not racists who are claiming that no one from their group is black (they’re saying the opposite), not to mention that putting black in as the undesirable attribute causes unfortunate and unpleasant problems.

[anon34812172]

#notallScotsmen

[Skeptic]

@anansi133

But it’s a fair question, and maybe the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is not the best frame for what’s wrong with, “black people can’t be racist”

I’m less interested in the question of racism in the contest of this thread as I am the excuses for why this isn’t a straight up No True Scotsman fallacy. Saying that Race A can’t be racist is like saying Race A can’t be misanthropes. Of course they can. It’s racist to say that any race can’t be racist. But, I’m interested in this as an example of where the NTS fallacy is, to my mind, falsely accepted as valid because we get all touchy about race and get defensively PC.

(Disclaimer: I think the US is quite racist in many ways, especially against blacks, both economically and through our very skewed justice system. My queries about the contours of NTS fallacy do not diminish those very real issues.)

[anon15383236]

Do you think women can be sexist?

[Skeptic]

@anon15383236

Do you think women can be sexist?

Of course. How is that even a question?

That doesn’t mean that the vast, vast majority of sexism isn’t men being sexist against women, of course, but sometimes that sexism is women being sexist against women.

[anon15383236]

Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination. Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.

FAQ: What is “sexism”?

[Skeptic]

@anon15383236

Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes,
stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination.
Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a
class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an
important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is
prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be
sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men
have.

Your quote is basically a long No True Scotsman fallacy.

Did you read my post? I noted that women can be sexist against women. Women can be sexist, regardless of what activists would like us to believe. Some religiously conservative women are good examples, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Dr. Laura, both of whom argue women should be at home tending the kids, even as they both have outside careers. They are both definitely sexist. And there are other more subtle forms of sexism by women against women, as with a study that found US women gave women instructors lower scores than male instructors.

I understand the desire to simplify sexism and racism to fit into neat packages that reflect the vast majority of sexism and racism, but I think those are both NTS fallacies - ones that are about topics that are so divisively political that it is not politically correct to awknowlege them as NTS fallacies.

[LDoBe]

@daneel

If this were a no true Scotsman fallacy, there’d be people saying “x isn’t a real black person, because no black person would say anything racist”. Does anyone do that?

I’ve seen it done. In the instances I’ve seen, it was when the culture at large would consider both interlocutors “black”, but one was a “light skinned black” person denying a favor to a “dark skinned black” person, and the latter accusing them of racism.

I do my best to be an unnoticed observer in such situations and try hard not to get involved.