False Equivalencies

“Slavery and Wage Labor: In debates about labor rights and conditions, equating slavery with wage labor creates a false equivalency. Slavery involves the complete ownership of one person by another, with no freedom or rights, whereas wage labor involves a contractual relationship where the worker has a choice (however constrained by economic conditions) and is compensated for their labor. The equating of the two ignores the fundamental human rights abuses inherent in slavery.”
“Appeasement vs. Strength in World War II: False equivalency: Some argued that appeasing Hitler’s demands for territory was no worse than Britain and France going to war. Reality: Appeasement emboldened Hitler and arguably made war inevitable, while taking a strong stance might have deterred him. The act of aggression is not the same as defending oneself from it.”
“The Civil Rights Movement and the White Supremacist Movement: Comparing these two under the guise of being simply opposing political perspectives ignores the moral and ethical dimensions. The Civil Rights Movement sought equality and justice for oppressed minorities, using nonviolent protest and legal change, while white supremacist movements seek to maintain or expand systems of racial discrimination and hate. Equating them disregards the just cause of civil rights against the unjust ideologies of supremacy.”

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

What are false equivalencies? Provide 5 examples from history.

False equivalencies occur when two opposing arguments or situations are presented as being directly comparable in value or magnitude, despite significant differences in context, scale, or complexity. These comparisons can mislead or oversimplify the nature of the arguments or situations being compared. Here are five examples from history where false equivalencies have been drawn:

Slavery and Wage Labor: In debates about labor rights and conditions, equating slavery with wage labor creates a false equivalency. Slavery involves the complete ownership of one person by another, with no freedom or rights, whereas wage labor involves a contractual relationship where the worker has a choice (however constrained by economic conditions) and is compensated for their labor. The equating of the two ignores the fundamental human rights abuses inherent in slavery.
Climate Change Denial: Some arguments against climate change action compare the Earth’s past natural climate fluctuations to current, human-induced climate change. This creates a false equivalency by ignoring the unprecedented rate of the current changes and the scientific consensus on human impact on climate change, suggesting that because natural changes happened in the past, current changes should not be a cause for concern.
Fascism and Anti-fascism Movements: Equating fascism with anti-fascism movements by suggesting they are both equally violent or authoritarian overlooks the intrinsic goals and methods of each. Fascism seeks to impose authoritarian control and often promotes racial and social hierarchy, while anti-fascism movements aim to resist such ideologies. The comparison neglects the fundamentally different motivations and outcomes associated with each group.
Colonialism and Post-colonial Immigration: Some narratives equate colonialism with the immigration of former colonized peoples to colonizer countries, suggesting a form of “reverse colonization.” This comparison ignores the power dynamics, exploitation, and violence of colonialism, and the context of immigration, which often results from the lingering economic and social disparities caused by colonialism.
The Civil Rights Movement and the White Supremacist Movement: Comparing these two under the guise of being simply opposing political perspectives ignores the moral and ethical dimensions. The Civil Rights Movement sought equality and justice for oppressed minorities, using nonviolent protest and legal change, while white supremacist movements seek to maintain or expand systems of racial discrimination and hate. Equating them disregards the just cause of civil rights against the unjust ideologies of supremacy.

These examples show how false equivalencies can distort understanding and hinder meaningful discourse by oversimplifying complex issues or falsely moralizing debates.

False equivalencies, also known as false equivalences, are misleading comparisons that equate two things that are not truly equivalent. They often downplay the significance of one side or create a false sense of balance between two unequal things. Here are 5 examples from history:

Appeasement vs. Strength in World War II: False equivalency: Some argued that appeasing Hitler’s demands for territory was no worse than Britain and France going to war. Reality: Appeasement emboldened Hitler and arguably made war inevitable, while taking a strong stance might have deterred him. The act of aggression is not the same as defending oneself from it.
Vaccines causing autism: False equivalency: A now-debunked study falsely linked childhood vaccines to autism, leading some parents to choose not to vaccinate their children. Reality: Multiple large-scale studies have shown no connection between vaccines and autism. The risk of vaccine-preventable diseases far outweighs any theoretical risk from vaccines.
Gun control vs. responsible gun ownership: False equivalency: The argument that gun control laws infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners is presented as equally valid to the need to restrict access to firearms in order to reduce gun violence. Reality: Responsible gun ownership does not preclude reasonable restrictions on gun sales and ownership that can help prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.
Monarchy vs. Democracy: False equivalency: Some may argue that a benevolent monarch can be just as effective as a democratic government. Reality: Democracy offers greater accountability and the ability for citizens to participate in shaping their government, which is absent in a monarchy.
Cold War – Both sides are equally responsible for the arms race: False equivalency: While both the US and USSR participated in the arms race, the Soviet Union initiated it and often pursued more aggressive military doctrines. Reality: The historical context and the level of aggression from each side need to be considered for a fair evaluation.

It seems many false equivalencies are based on the inclusion of vague terms. Evaluate whether the statements below may be false equivalencies introduced to avoid a rigorous examination of the nuanced truth of the matter.

We all have a worldview that makes sense to each of us.
The president’s decision lead to the death of many people. He should be tried for murder.
That’s just your opinion.
That leader’s decision resulted in many deaths, making him no different from Hitler.
We all start with different presuppositions and therefore arrive at different conclusions.
I have faith in my God, but I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
We all die of something, so I’ll just keep smoking.
You’ve lied before. How can you blame me for my lies?
I’m also a skeptic. I am skeptical of your skepticism.

The statements provided cover a range of arguments and assertions that, upon closer inspection, may indeed involve the use of false equivalencies or attempt to bypass a deeper understanding of the issues at hand through oversimplification or vague reasoning. Let’s evaluate each statement in turn:

1: We all have a worldview that makes sense to each of us.

This statement, while true, might be used to dismiss arguments or avoid engaging with evidence that contradicts one’s worldview. It suggests an equivalency between all worldviews regardless of their basis in fact, logic, or ethical considerations, avoiding the rigorous examination of those worldviews. It’s essential to differentiate between worldviews based on their ability to withstand scrutiny and adapt to new information.

2: The president’s decision led to the death of many people. He should be tried for murder.

This is potentially a false equivalency because it equates the consequences of political decisions, which may result in casualties, with the act of murder, which is intentionally causing someone’s death unlawly. Political decisions are complex and involve considerations of law, ethics, and unintended consequences. Charging a political figure with murder for policy outcomes without clear, direct intent to kill simplifies legal and ethical distinctions.

3: That’s just your opinion.

This statement can be a way to dismiss someone’s argument without engaging with it substantively. It falsely equates all opinions as being of equal value regardless of their grounding in evidence or logical coherence. This avoidance tactic fails to recognize that some opinions are better supported by facts and rational argumentation than others.

4: That leader’s decision resulted in many deaths, making him no different from Hitler.

Comparing any leader to Hitler because of policies that resulted in deaths creates a false equivalency by ignoring the scale, intent, and context of their actions compared to the systematic, genocidal intent of Hitler’s regime. This oversimplification serves to emotionally charge the argument but detracts from a nuanced analysis of the leader’s decisions and their impacts.

5: We all start with different presuppositions and therefore arrive at different conclusions.

While it’s true that different starting points can lead to different conclusions, this statement can be used to imply that all conclusions are equally valid, which is not necessarily the case. It can avoid the necessary work of examining which presuppositions are more reasonable or supported by evidence. The statement does not account for the possibility that some conclusions might be more justified than others.

6: I have faith in my God, but I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.

This statement suggests a false equivalency between faith in a deity and atheism, framing atheism as a faith-based position. However, atheism is often based on a lack of belief in gods due to the absence of evidence rather than a “faith” in no gods. It misconstrues the nature of faith and disbelief.

7: We all die of something, so I’ll just keep smoking.

This equates the inevitability of death with a disregard for the manner or timing of death, ignoring the difference between avoidable and unavoidable causes. It simplifies the complex issues surrounding health, choice, and consequences, potentially minimizing the significance of making healthier lifestyle choices.

8: You’ve lied before. How can you blame me for my lies?

This creates a false equivalency between possibly different circumstances or scales of lying, suggesting that all lies are equal and, therefore, all equally excusable. It avoids addressing the specific context or impact of the lies in question, undermining the basis for moral or ethical judgment.

9: I’m also a skeptic. I am skeptical of your skepticism.

While skepticism is a valuable approach in critical thinking, claiming skepticism of another’s skepticism without engaging with their arguments is a form of false equivalency that equates dismissing or ignoring evidence with critical analysis. True skepticism involves questioning and evaluating evidence, not merely doubting for doubt’s sake.

Each of these statements demonstrates how false equivalencies and vague terms can be employed to sidestep deeper investigation or consideration of the nuances inherent in complex issues.

Evaluating Statements for False Equivalency:

Let’s analyze the statements to see if they create misleading comparisons or avoid a nuanced discussion:

“We all have a worldview that makes sense to each of us.”

This statement isn’t necessarily a false equivalence. Worldviews are complex and influenced by personal experiences and values. However, it can be misleading if it suggests all worldviews are equally valid. Some worldviews might be based on demonstrably false information or promote harmful ideologies.

“The president’s decision lead to the death of many people. He should be tried for murder.”

This is likely not a false equivalence. Murder has a specific legal definition requiring intent to kill. The statement highlights a consequence but doesn’t claim moral equivalence between the decision and murder. A more nuanced discussion would explore the president’s intent, the decision-making process, and potential legal consequences for any wrongdoing.

“That’s just your opinion.”

This can be a false equivalence if used to dismiss opposing viewpoints without considering their merit. A healthy debate acknowledges different opinions but evaluates them based on evidence and reasoning. Simply calling something an opinion shuts down a productive conversation.

“That leader’s decision resulted in many deaths, making him no different from Hitler.”

This is a potential false equivalence. The scale and intent behind the deaths matter. Hitler’s actions were part of a deliberate genocide, while the other leader’s decision might have had unintended consequences. A more precise comparison would require examining the historical context and the specific actions of each leader.

“We all start with different presuppositions and therefore arrive at different conclusions.”

This isn’t necessarily false. People have different backgrounds and experiences that shape their thinking. However, it shouldn’t excuse reaching illogical conclusions. Even with different starting points, evidence and logic should guide our reasoning.

“I have faith in my God, but I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”

This is a misleading statement. Faith in a god and atheism are opposite positions. Perhaps the speaker is referring to a lack of conviction in the absence of a god, but it’s not phrased as a true equivalence.

“We all die of something, so I’ll just keep smoking.”

This is a false equivalence. Smoking is a well-established risk factor for various diseases, while “everything” includes natural causes not necessarily influenced by our choices. This statement avoids acknowledging the increased health risks associated with smoking.

“You’ve lied before. How can you blame me for my lies?”

This is a deflection tactic, not necessarily a false equivalence. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The person is using the other’s past actions to justify their own lie, rather than taking responsibility.

“I’m also a skeptic. I am skeptical of your skepticism.”

This isn’t inherently a false equivalence. Skepticism involves questioning claims, and skepticism can be applied to other people’s skepticism. However, it would be more productive to explain what aspects of the other person’s skepticism they doubt.

Some suggest it is senseless to directly engage someone who tends to employ false equivalencies. We should instead focus on educating the silent audience observing the interaction What is your advice on this?

The advice to focus on the silent audience rather than directly engaging with someone who employs false equivalencies is rooted in strategic communication and persuasion techniques. This approach recognizes that in some cases, the person using false equivalencies may not be open to changing their perspective, regardless of the evidence or arguments presented. Here are some considerations and strategies for addressing false equivalencies while keeping the broader audience in mind:

Understand Your Goals

Clarify Intentions: Determine if your goal is to change the mind of the person you’re engaging with or to influence the opinions of the broader audience. If it’s the latter, tailor your responses for maximum clarity and impact for those listening or reading.
Educate the Audience: Use the opportunity to educate the silent audience. Provide clear, factual information and debunk false equivalencies by highlighting their logical flaws and providing the correct context.

Use Effective Communication Strategies

Stay Calm and Respectful: Maintain a calm and respectful tone. Hostility can alienate the audience you’re trying to reach. Demonstrating respect and patience can make your argument more appealing to onlookers.
Be Clear and Concise: Avoid jargon and overly complex explanations. Clear, straightforward arguments are more likely to resonate with the audience.
Employ Stories and Analogies: Use relatable stories or analogies to explain complex issues, making it easier for the audience to understand your point without getting bogged down in the specifics of the false equivalency.

Engage Strategically

Pick Your Battles: Recognize when engagement is futile. If someone is committed to using false equivalencies, further engagement might not be productive. Focus your efforts where they can make a difference.
Highlight Common Ground: When possible, acknowledge areas of agreement before presenting your counterarguments. This can make your audience more receptive to your perspective.
Encourage Critical Thinking: Instead of directly countering every false equivalency, sometimes ask questions that encourage the audience to think critically about the claims being made. This can be a more effective way of promoting understanding and skepticism about oversimplified comparisons.

Consider the Platform

Adjust for the Medium: Tailor your approach based on whether the discussion is happening in person, on social media, in a public forum, etc. The dynamics of the conversation and the nature of the audience can vary significantly across different platforms.

Focusing on the silent audience doesn’t mean completely ignoring the person employing false equivalencies. Instead, it’s about strategically directing your efforts to where they can have the most significant positive impact. By addressing the underlying issues in a way that educates and engages the broader audience, you can contribute to a more informed and thoughtful public discourse.

There’s merit to both directly engaging someone using false equivalencies and focusing on the silent audience. Here’s a breakdown of the pros and cons of each approach, along with some additional advice:

Engaging the False Equivalence User:

Pros:

Corrects Misinformation: You can directly challenge the false equivalence and provide a more nuanced perspective. This can be helpful for the silent audience who might be confused by the misleading comparison.
Teaches Critical Thinking: By dissecting the false equivalence, you can demonstrate how to evaluate arguments for logical fallacies. This can benefit both the user themself and the silent audience.
Shows Confidence and Resolve: Pushing back against misleading arguments can project an image of confidence and a commitment to truth.

Cons:

Can Be Seen as Argumentative: Directly challenging someone might escalate the situation or make you seem overly argumentative.
Feeding the Troll: Some people enjoy sowing discord and might relish the opportunity to debate endlessly. Engaging them might play into their hands.
Time-Consuming: Debunking false equivalencies can be time-consuming, especially if the person is persistent.

Focusing on the Silent Audience:

Pros:

Bypasses Pointless Debate: You can redirect the conversation and present a well-reasoned counter-argument without getting bogged down in an unproductive back-and-forth.
Appeals to Reason: By focusing on the silent audience, you provide them with a clear and objective explanation, allowing them to form their own conclusions.
Can Be More Persuasive: A well-crafted message aimed at the silent audience might be more persuasive than directly confronting the user.

Cons:

Ignores the Misinformation: Not directly addressing the false equivalence might leave it unchallenged and potentially accepted by the silent audience.
Appears Dismissive: Ignoring the user entirely might come across as dismissive or afraid of addressing their point.

Here’s my overall advice:

Consider the Context: Evaluate the situation. If it’s a casual conversation, you might choose to bypass the false equivalence and focus on the silent audience. In a more formal setting, directly addressing it might be necessary.
Be Concise and Clear: If you do choose to challenge the false equivalence, keep it brief and to the point. Don’t get drawn into a lengthy debate.
Shift the Focus: After addressing the false equivalence, quickly shift the conversation to a more productive discussion point.
Plant the Seeds of Doubt: Even if you don’t win over the false equivalence user, you can plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the silent audience.
Use Humor (Carefully): A well-placed joke or witty remark can sometimes disarm a false equivalence user and highlight the absurdity of their argument. However, use humor cautiously to avoid appearing disrespectful.

Remember, the goal is to promote a productive discussion and prevent the spread of misinformation. Choose the approach that best achieves that goal in each specific situation.

Create a 7-item quiz on the discussion above.

Certainly! Here’s a 7-item quiz based on our discussion about false equivalencies and how to engage in discussions where they are employed, along with the answers listed separately.

Quiz

What is a false equivalency?

A. Equating two things that are equally valid.
B. Incorrectly suggesting two unrelated concepts are similar.
C. Comparing two things that are exactly the same.
D. A logical fallacy that involves proving an argument false.

Why might someone choose to focus on the silent audience in a discussion involving false equivalencies?

A. Because the silent audience is easier to convince.
B. The person using false equivalencies may not be open to changing their perspective.
C. It is easier to ignore the main argument.
D. The silent audience always agrees with the speaker.

Which of the following is NOT a recommended strategy when engaging with someone using false equivalencies?

A. Using jargon to prove your point.
B. Staying calm and respectful.
C. Employing stories and analogies.
D. Encouraging critical thinking.

What should be clarified first before engaging in a discussion where false equivalencies are employed?

A. Your personal beliefs.
B. Your intentions or goals for the discussion.
C. The number of people in the silent audience.
D. The educational background of your opponent.

How can one effectively counter false equivalencies in a discussion?

A. By agreeing with them to avoid conflict.
B. By highlighting their logical flaws and providing correct context.
C. Ignoring them and changing the subject.
D. Using more false equivalencies to make a point.

When is it advisable to disengage from a discussion involving false equivalencies?

A. When you are winning the argument.
B. As soon as a false equivalency is identified.
C. When further engagement is not productive.
D. Never, all discussions must be seen to the end.

Which strategy encourages the audience to think critically about the claims being made?

A. Directly countering every false equivalency with facts.
B. Asking questions that challenge the premises of the false equivalencies.
C. Repeating the false equivalencies for emphasis.
D. Avoiding the topic altogether.

Answers

B. Incorrectly suggesting two unrelated concepts are similar.
B. The person using false equivalencies may not be open to changing their perspective.
A. Using jargon to prove your point.
B. Your intentions or goals for the discussion.
B. By highlighting their logical flaws and providing correct context.
C. When further engagement is not productive.
B. Asking questions that challenge the premises of the false equivalencies.

Quiz: Engaging with False Equivalences

You encounter someone using a false equivalence in a discussion. What is a potential benefit of directly challenging the false equivalence? a) You might win over the person using the false equivalence. b) It shows the other person you are willing to compromise. c) You can help the silent audience identify misleading arguments. d) It allows you to vent your frustration with the other person.
Why might someone focus on the silent audience of a discussion rather than directly engaging the person using a false equivalence? a) They are afraid of being seen as argumentative. b) They want to give the other person a chance to save face. c) They believe a well-reasoned message can be more persuasive. d) They lack the knowledge to effectively debunk the false equivalence.
When deciding how to respond to a false equivalence, what is an important factor to consider? a) The topic of the discussion b) The personality of the person using the false equivalence c) The size of the audience d) All of the above
If you choose to challenge a false equivalence, it’s important to: a) Focus on attacking the person’s character rather than their argument. b) Present a counter-argument based on emotion and personal opinion. c) Be clear and concise, avoiding getting bogged down in a long debate. d) Use technical jargon to appear more intelligent than the other person.
How can humor be a helpful tool when dealing with false equivalences? a) It can make light of the situation and defuse tension. b) It guarantees the other person will abandon their argument. c) It allows you to insult the other person in a veiled way. d) Humor is never appropriate in a serious discussion.
What is the ultimate goal when encountering someone using a false equivalence in a discussion? a) To win an argument and prove the other person wrong. b) To promote a productive discussion and prevent misinformation. c) To make the other person feel embarrassed about their views. d) To avoid the conversation altogether.
When responding to a false equivalence, it’s important to: a) Completely ignore the false equivalence and move on. b) Focus solely on explaining why the other person is wrong. c) Briefly address the false equivalence and then shift the focus to a more productive discussion point. d) Dwell on the details of the false equivalence and dissect every flaw.

Answers:

(c) You can help the silent audience identify misleading arguments.
(c) They believe a well-reasoned message can be more persuasive.
(d) All of the above
(c) Be clear and concise, avoiding getting bogged down in a long debate.
(a) It can make light of the situation and defuse tension.
(b) To promote a productive discussion and prevent misinformation.
(c) Briefly address the false equivalence and then shift the focus to a more productive discussion point.

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

How does the use of false equivalencies impact the quality of public discourse?
Can you think of a recent political debate where false equivalencies were used to argue a point? How did it affect the discussion?
Why might someone resort to using false equivalencies in an argument?
Discuss the ethical implications of employing false equivalencies in media reporting.
How can educators teach students to recognize and critically evaluate false equivalencies?
In what ways can false equivalencies undermine scientific discussions, especially those related to climate change?
How do false equivalencies play a role in shaping public opinion on social justice issues?
Discuss the difference between simplifying complex issues for understanding and oversimplifying them through false equivalencies. Where should the line be drawn?
Can false equivalencies ever be used effectively in rhetoric without misleading? Give an example if possible.
How can social media platforms address the spread of false equivalencies without infringing on free speech?
What are the consequences of not addressing false equivalencies in public and private discussions?
How does the concept of false equivalencies relate to the problem of “both sides” journalism?
Discuss how the strategy of focusing on the silent audience might change the outcome of a discussion involving false equivalencies.
In what ways can individuals develop their critical thinking skills to better identify false equivalencies?
How do false equivalencies affect negotiations and decision-making in business and politics?

Discussion Prompts: Engaging with False Equivalences

Can you think of a recent example from the news or social media where you encountered a false equivalence? How did it affect the discussion?
Weigh the pros and cons of directly challenging someone using a false equivalence. When might each approach be more effective?
How can we identify false equivalences in a conversation? Are there any telltale signs to watch out for?
Focusing on the silent audience is a key strategy. How can we craft messages that resonate with this audience and effectively counter misleading arguments?
Consider the concept of “planting seeds of doubt” in the minds of the silent audience. How can we do this in a way that is respectful and promotes critical thinking?
When might humor be a helpful tool when dealing with false equivalences? On the other hand, when could it backfire?
The passage talks about the importance of considering the context. How might the appropriate way to respond to a false equivalence differ depending on the setting (casual conversation vs. formal debate)?
What role do emotions play in our ability to identify and respond to false equivalences? Can strong emotions cloud our judgment?
Effective communication is key. How can we improve our communication skills to better dissect and debunk false equivalences in discussions?
Social media is a breeding ground for false equivalences. How can online platforms be designed to help users identify and avoid spreading misleading information?
Do you think there are certain topics that are more susceptible to false equivalences than others? Why or why not?
The ultimate goal is to promote productive discussions. How can we create discussion spaces that encourage critical thinking and respectful exchange of ideas?
What are some of the challenges we face in a society saturated with information and opinions? How can we become more discerning consumers of information?
Beyond false equivalences, what other logical fallacies should we be aware of in order to have productive discussions?
Looking ahead, how can we teach critical thinking skills to younger generations so they are better equipped to identify and counter misleading arguments?

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}