The “race card” trumps all?

A “red herring argument” is little more than an accusation or insinuation used to distract people from an issue through the introduction of some irrelevancy(*).  For example,  someone might disagree with Barack Obama’s socialist policies based on various arguments against the inefficacy of socialist economics or the legality of executive control of the economy, but instead of dealing with such questions, a defender of the Obama administration might hint that the questioner is a closet “racist.”  Obviously  such a ploy is little more than an ad hominem tactic meant to effect suppression, and the charge of being a “racist” thereby destroys any possibility of genuine dialog of the issues.  It is a classic move of “Alinsky-logic,” a cowardly form of bullying others to effect social change…

Now racism is unfortunately a real phenomenon in the world (just ask the NAACP, the ADL, or other groups that genuinely deal with it), but to blandly accuse someone of being a “racist” because they happen to disagree with you is political correctness run amok.  It is inherently racist to use play the “race card” whenever you feel threatened.  It is a sign of weakness and a sign of intolerance.

(*) The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a “red herring” argument is one intended to distract from the real issues.  By extension, a “red herring” applies to any argument in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

1 comment to The “race card” trumps all?

You must be logged in to post a comment.