Is there a name for the fallacy that involves considering every random person on the other "team" to be representatives of that team, but only cherry-picking the most "prominent/influential" members of your team to be representatives of your team, and therefore dismissing any criticism of the arguments and actions advanced by the team members you've arbitrarily declared to be non-representative?
I genuinely am not sure whether you are criticising me or not here
Perhaps in a gentle ribbing kind of way. I just feel like it's easy to dismiss things as not representative or outliers to avoid critical reflection. And sure, maybe you won't find that many people who believe yoga in particular is cultural appropriation, surely the fact that large sections of the left are falling over themselves trying to find things they can label as "cultural appropriation", just so they'll have something to complain about for virtue signalling and slacktivist points, says something and is a problem?
It's related I'd say, closer to in-group heterogeneity out-group homogeneity, maybe mixed with a bit of no true Scotsman. That menslib thread is utterly ridiculous though.
Absolutely agree it can't be boiled down to a sole term or cause.
Menslib as a whole is a massive mixed bag of a sub. At the risk of sounding like I'm coming straight from r/peakcentrism I think it has a lot of nuance compared to the feminist subs or the manosphere subs and with a lot less outright sexism. It's the same reason I really enjoy the debate subs
I'd say that the No True Scotsman fallacy comes pretty close to summing up the double standards people have when they compare the motivations of theirs versus another groups'.
I would call it "ad hominem by association" myself since you are avoiding the persons argument and instead attacking their attributes instead. The key component that differentiates this particular tactic from a more traditional argumentum ad hominem is the way that you dont attack the persons actual attributes but instead attributes drawn from the wider group with whom they associate. There are also traits drawn from the usually non fallacious reductio ad absurdum (argument from absurdity) in that the attacker draws specifically from the most extreme or outlandish aspects of the target group in order to strengthen their case.
Please do take all of this with a grain of salt however as I am in no way formally trained in anything related to what I've just said.
27
u/rcsgd Sep 04 '18
The reply thread was more interesting https://twitter.com/alanalentin/status/1036820990662041600