It’s a common argument. We think we see a pattern. Behavior A provokes Reaction B. E.g., when a white person in a gorilla mask attacks a black politician, that’s a horrible, racist act that has to be denounced everywhere.
Then we see an exception to that pattern. Conservative Larry Elder gets attacked by a white person in a gorilla mask, and we hear … crickets. No denunciations. No accusations of racism.
It certainly seems like hypocrisy (I think it is), but it’s worth taking at least a moment to reflect on the poor quality of this form of argument.
We don’t know if Behavior A always provokes Reaction B. We see that sequence some times, and we think it’s a pattern. But is it really? If Behavior A doesn’t always provoke Reaction B, do we know why? Might the Larry Elder case fit into that general exception?
It is a weak sort of an argument, and I’m sure David Hume would hate it. But it’s strong enough that we should call out the media for ignoring this story.
It seems pretty obvious that it’s only “racist” (in the minds of the mainstream media) when people attack liberal blacks, and use props that are historically associated with anti-black bigotry.
It’s not a slam dunk. But it would be just as specious to say, “Because it’s not a slam dunk, there’s nothing to see here, no more questions to be asked” as it is to say, “because this happens, it proves XYZ” without considering whether it fits an exception contained within the system.
Yes, people seem to apply one standard of proof to things that make them uncomfortable, and another standard to things that make them feel good and wise and right about the world.
“Not a slam dunk” does not mean “I’m perfectly justified in ignoring this.”