Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument; not disagreeing with your overall point. If you seek to be persuasive, form your argument on points that can’t be so easily dismantled. Framing the argument from the perspective of patriarchal hegemony would be far more advantageous as it can’t then be weaponised by those who would seek to be bigots.
I’ve made no accusations towards you about being racist because I don’t know anything about you; I wouldn’t do that without evidence. It might be worth reflecting on why you felt I did so.
Okay, one, I am a different person. Two, it’s not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies have names.
I thought about asking if you knew what code switching was, and I really should have. You don’t seem to understand why I brought that up.
There are lots of black people in the US who will talk to white people in a different way than they will talk to their friends and family. It’s usually more polite, more cordial, more deferential, and much, much less “crass”.
Now, think about this for a second: why would a black person in the US want to be seen as polite in front of white people? What assumptions do you think they’re making?
My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.
Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.
I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.
Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument; not disagreeing with your overall point. If you seek to be persuasive, form your argument on points that can’t be so easily dismantled. Framing the argument from the perspective of patriarchal hegemony would be far more advantageous as it can’t then be weaponised by those who would seek to be bigots.
I’ve made no accusations towards you about being racist because I don’t know anything about you; I wouldn’t do that without evidence. It might be worth reflecting on why you felt I did so.
Okay, one, I am a different person. Two, it’s not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies have names.
I thought about asking if you knew what code switching was, and I really should have. You don’t seem to understand why I brought that up.
There are lots of black people in the US who will talk to white people in a different way than they will talk to their friends and family. It’s usually more polite, more cordial, more deferential, and much, much less “crass”.
Now, think about this for a second: why would a black person in the US want to be seen as polite in front of white people? What assumptions do you think they’re making?
My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.
Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.
I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.