Anti-Racists and the Fallacy of Special Pleading

As with most logical fallacies, double standards are the result of emotions run amok

Human beings are a walking contradiction. On the one hand, thanks to our highly-developed frontal lobes and prefrontal cortex (our primate brains), we’re capable of mastering abstractions through the power of complex symbol manipulation. This allows language, art, mathematics, invention, and the conceptualizing of ideas and ideals.

On the other hand, thanks to our primitive brain stem and amygdala (our crocodile brains), we’re also capable of reactionary, emotional tirades, and frequent outbursts of irrationality and rank superstition. For both, we have evolution to thank or to blame.

Among the better angels of our evolved nature though, is our ability to engage in logic, our ability to reason through problems using the power of deduction. But this power is forever threatened by the dark, vestigial impulses of our less-developed selves. Raw emotions are continually trying to derail clear thinking.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in discourse surrounding highly emotional topics. And few topics engender stronger emotions these days than discussions of race, racism, and racial inequities.

So let’s explore them, logically.

With the recent rise of the “anti-racist” movement, and its subsequent storming of both academia and corporate America in the guise of the multi-billion dollar “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” industry, the fundamental principles underlying anti-racism (as expressed by its most renowned prophets, Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi) have hit the mainstream.

But this has not been without its fair share of controversy.

For while I’m fairly certain most ethical and compassionate people of good character have no beef with anti-racism’s end goals, surely there’s room within a diverse and pluralistic society to debate means and methods, even if fully agreeing with said goals. Surely reasonable people can dispute the specific, chosen tactics of a movement while still concurring with the overall strategic aims.

But therein lies the problem — that pesky word “reason.”

You see, there are many people in society who are either incapable or unwilling to employ it. Many, in fact, have no use for it whatsoever. For such people (whom I’ll hereafter refer to as “misologists,” from misology — the hatred or fear of reasoning or argument), it’s all emotion, all the time. If you’ve ever spent much time on social media, then you’re already well acquainted with them.

For whatever reason (and there’s that word “reason” again), the social justice movement seems absolutely riddled with misologists. So passionate are they in their sense of outrage at what they perceive as ubiquitous injustice in society, that all notions of having to rationally argue their case go right out the window.

Instead, they rely on chants, slogans, name-calling, unfounded allegations, and dismissal of due process. And when all else fails, they then resort to rioting, looting, burning, and pillaging.

It’s not a pretty sight.

Now, I like to think of myself as a pretty reasonable person. As such, I can pretty well guarantee that you’ll never once find me marching in the streets, chanting and carrying signs — irrespective of the cause. Carefully constructed rhetoric is much more my jam.

(In fact, one of my favorite quotes of all time comes from The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. It says, “Life is complex. Beware of slogans.”)

But being as I have little choice but to be a member of society, I’m pretty sure that gives me as much right as anyone to discuss societal issues. After all, they still affect me. They still affect those I love. They certainly affect the world my children are going to have to grow up in.

So, considering the salience of that highly-charged issue mentioned before, racism, I’m going to discuss it, as I’ve been inclined to do in recent weeks. And I’m going to do so the only way I know how, that is reasonably. And that entails logic.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t have an advanced degree in philosophy. My background is in engineering. But engineering requires a lot of math (which is logic in its purest form). And modern engineering requires computers, and that means lots of coding and creating formulas in spreadsheets — both of which involve logic, at least in its Boolean form.

So I’m not particularly hung up by those who try to dismiss my reasoning by falling back on “credentialism.” Because the best thing about logic is that it’s, well, logical. It doesn’t matter how many letters you have after your name. What matters is how well you adhere to logical principles, and how well you argue using them.

The other great thing about logic is that it’s utterly indifferent to emotion. In fact, if logic were anthropomorphized into a political partisan (and this is in no way a partisan endorsement, as I despise all parties equally), it would probably wear a MAGA hat, because it definitely subscribes to the “fuck your feelings” mindset.

Logic simply doesn’t care about feelings. Consequently, feelings are almost always to blame for departures from, or the complete abandonment of logic. As one site specializing in describing fallacies notes:

[They are] often committed in a situation where a person is emotionally attached to a position and feels the need to defend it, and, as a result, their reasoning is driven by emotions rather than logic.

That being the case, I want to explore how fallacious reasoning drives much of the modern social justice movement, and the anti-racist movement in particular.

I’ve explored elsewhere how the “false dilemma” is a favorite amongst activists, often appearing on protest signs and slogans. I’ve also previously explored in-depth the fundamental semantic failure underlying anti-racist ideology through a conflation of disparate terms in its core principles — particularly the highly contentious notion that “all white people are racist.”

But now I want to revisit that latter statement by examining its corollary, that “people of color cannot be racists.” Specifically, I intend to show how it’s a case of the fallacy of “special pleading,” also known as the “double standard.” This is generally defined as:

A flaw in reasoning that weakens an argument, or a trick of thought used as a debate tactic, in which someone applies a certain set of criteria to other people and circumstances while exempting themselves from the same criteria.

Special pleading occurs when someone dismisses a specific case as an exception to a rule without adequate reasons. It is typically committed when one needs to justify either their own claim or a position that has some sort of significance to them. The arguer attempts to exempt themselves from the same standards that they expect to be applied to others.

A perfect example of such flawed reasoning can be found in the following statement from an anti-racist indoctrination program at the University of Delaware (excerpted from the student manual for incoming freshman). It says:

A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….

It’s should be immediately apparent the blatant double standard at play here. Basically, if I, as a white person, do this horrible thing, I get irreparably branded with a career-ending, life-destroying label — probably the worst insult of the modern age. But if you, as a person of color, do the exact same horrible thing, you get off scot-free.

How convenient. And how perfectly absurd.

It’s nothing but special pleading, a pure double standard. It’s “rules for thee but not for me.” How can anyone think otherwise without twisting their brain into a pretzel through doublethink?

And what’s doubly infuriating is how this notion has pretty much taken over academia, which is supposed to represent “the best and the brightest.” The most hyperemotional is more like it.

Anyway, with that said, I’d now like to return once again to the first assertion in that student guide’s pathetic attempt at brainwashing, the assertion that “all white people are racist.”

I feel almost compelled to revisit it, considering how incredibly damaging it’s been not only to race relations in this country, but to the mental health of millions of my countrymen. In a just world, it would be categorically rescinded and apologized for by those who foolishly or deviously imposed it upon America. (Here’s looking at you, DiAngelo.)

As I did in a previous essay, I’m going to put this into the form of a logical syllogism, to clearly demonstrate its nefarious effect. It goes as follows:

Premise #1) Racism/being racist is society’s greatest evil.

(Or at least, this certainly seems to be the consensus of the modern zeitgeist.)

Premise #2) All white people are racist.

(See indoctrination quote above. And spoiler alert, I heartily dispute the truth of this statement, therefore rendering the syllogism invalid. But many, at least those shameless propagandists at the U of D, would disagree.)

Conclusion) Therefore, all white people are evil.

You can see how this might be problematic.

To further analyze why, let’s consider a very similar construction on an unrelated topic in order to better shed light on how it’s such a ridiculous conception. Here goes:

Premise #1) Modern industrial, consumerist society is damaging to the environment, i.e. “ecocidal.”

Premise #2) All Americans live in a modern, industrial, consumerist society.

Conclusion) Therefore, all Americans are ecocidal.

By this reasoning (or lack thereof), it doesn’t matter if you’re homeless living in a cardboard box behind a dumpster. It doesn’t matter if you’re a hippy living off-the-grid in a straw bale house with rain barrels and an organic garden you fertilize using your own excrement. It doesn’t matter if you’re an environmental activist chaining yourself to old-growth trees or gluing yourself to paintings in art galleries. Hell, it doesn’t even matter if you’re the CEO of ExxonMobil.

Because under this paradigm, no matter what you do or don’t do, no matter how much you care or don’t care, you’re still an irredeemable ecocidal maniac. Because ecocide is a “systemic injustice.” It’s “institutional.”

Now tell me, how does such derisive name-calling in any way advance the cause of protecting and restoring the environment? Is guilting and shaming entire groups of people for actions they haven’t partaken in really the best way forward?

And shouldn’t we have different words to morally differentiate between the Greenpeace activist and the fossil fuel corporate executive? Is it really in any way beneficial or useful to lump them both together solely by virtue of their shared nationality?

Well, it’s no different when it comes to defining and dealing with racism.

To carry the analogy a bit further, even if we do wish to paint all Americans as ecocidal maniacs, would it be fair to categorically exclude Europeans or Asians from this label? Is harming the environment an activity that’s uniquely American? Does no one else build with concrete and burn fossil fuels to power their civilization? I’m pretty sure they do.

Therefore, I’d argue that the entire notion is not only false, but needlessly divisive and completely counterproductive to achieving its purported aims.

So here’s a better idea. Instead of going down the identitarian route and thinking you can completely define someone by their race, their gender, their religion, their sexual orientation, or their country of birth, what if instead we treated all human beings as unique individuals who are wholly and solely responsible for their own actions and behaviors?

Instead of saying “all white people are racist,” and “people of color cannot be racists,” why not say:

“There are racists of all colors. And there are political systems that contain legacies of being built by people holding racist beliefs, and thus, continue to disadvantage people of color. And to address both issues, we’re going to judge individual racists on their individual failings and then work to remedy systemic deficiencies on a systemic level.”

That way, we can take on the haters one by one rather than unjustly accusing everyone else of being one. And we can work to fix broken systems by fixing the system, not the individuals who had no say in its original creation and merely inherited it along with everyone else.

Is that such a crazy notion?

Colby Hess is a freelance writer and photographer from Seattle, and author of the freethinker children’s book The Stranger of Wigglesworth.

If you enjoy my writing and would like to receive stories by email whenever I publish, please click here.