Damning Accusations
Cheng describes arguments in which someone replaces a stated position with a harsher supposedly equivalent claim, then attacks the speaker for it. Checking the alleged equivalence can expose where the accusation goes beyond what was said.
THE IDEA
DAMNING ACCUSATIONS
False equivalence can make people hear an accusation that was never made. It can also lead them to make damning accusations of the speaker. This quickly spirals into an antagonistic argument, the kind where instead of trying to see eye to eye, two people try to cast each other in worse and worse lights and thus drive the disagreement further and further apart.
For example, I might say that I don’t want to be fat so I am careful what I eat. Someone might then say to me “You’re fat-shaming and that is misogynistic”. I get criticised for not wanting to be fat in many ways, but this is one of the common ones. Apparently not wanting to be fat makes me misogynistic. Suddenly it turns into an argument about misogyny.
A sign that someone is about to make a false equivalence is when they launch in with “You’re basically saying...‘’ which is a sign they’re about to twist your words into something they’re not. You might say “I think it’s unfair that some people just inherit tons of money so never have to worry about anything, whereas other people are born with nothing.” Someone might argue “So you’re basically saying that everyone’s money should be confiscated when they die so that they can’t pass it on.” That’s not what I’m saying at all. There are a lot of possibilities in between simply allowing inequality to be handed down from generation to generation and forcibly confiscating all money at death. But the arguments in between are complicated. They involve things like trying to even out inequality at all stages of life, trying to help those who are born with nothing so that they can rise out of that situation and then maybe they too can have something to pass on to their children. The arguments in between are usually too complex for a fast-paced shouting match or an online exchange.
In general, an antagonistic argument driven by a false equivalence might go like this:
- You are saying A.
- A is equivalent to B.
- B is bad.
- Therefore you are a terrible person.
The logic of this can fail in two places: maybe B isn’t really bad, or maybe A isn’t really equivalent to B. Of course, it could also fail in both places. Arguing against logic that fails in multiple places can be strangely confusing, like you’re giving too many excuses or protesting too much. An example of this is if you support reproductive education at school, and someone declares that’s equivalent to condoning sex outside marriage, so is evil. I don’t think it is equivalent to condoning sex outside marriage, but I also don’t think sex outside marriage is evil.
When to use it
Before responding to a disputed position, check that your paraphrase preserves what the person actually claimed.
In online comment sections, recognize when someone is using a false equivalence to turn a rational discussion into a character attack.
During political discussions, avoid falling into the trap of equating a specific policy proposal with an entire ideology, which can lead to damning accusations.
In workplace disagreements, notice if a colleague warps your suggestion into a caricature, then calmly restate your original point to prevent escalation.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Fat-shaming accusation
Cheng describes saying that she watches what she eats because she does not want to be fat. Someone replies, “You’re fat-shaming and that is misogynistic.” Her example challenges the inference from her stated personal preference to that accusation.
Inheritance tax distortion
Cheng objects to the inequality between people who inherit wealth and people born with nothing. Someone retorts, “So you’re basically saying that everyone’s money should be confiscated when they die.” That substitutes a particular extreme policy for the broader concern she expressed.
Reproductive education controversy
Cheng describes support for reproductive education being equated with condoning sex outside marriage and then condemned as evil. She challenges both the equivalence and the moral premise. These are separate objections to the argument.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Have you ever been accused of a position you didn't hold because someone used a false equivalence? How did you handle it?
When you hear 'You're basically saying...', what techniques can you use to clarify your actual position before the argument escalates?
In what ways might a false equivalence cause you to unintentionally demonize someone else's argument?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Art of Logic How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn’t (Eugenia Cheng)