My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.
Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.
I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.
Thanks for elucidating the link clearly there; I can now see how it’s relevant to the discussion.
Being that I’m not black, nor am I from the US, I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching. I’m happy to be educated, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming the intent of people with whom I don’t have a shared experience. That tends to be a recipe for misunderstanding.
To be extremely clear, I was never challenging the core premise that the other commenter was trying to make. I even made mention that I did not disagree with the point being made. My intention was to suggest that the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious, and therefore open to be easily challenged or weaponised for purposes I’m sure the other commenter did not intend.
I went so far as to suggest that the argument should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony as I personally believe that argument stands up to scrutiny in a far better way. Speaking about the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves is also a strong argument. Basing it upon the idea that generalisations can be made about populations and those within those populations to whom it doesn’t apply shouldn’t be upset by that is a very weak argument for the reasons I stated.
I get the sense you might have misconstrued my intent - an understandable notion given that we’re communicating via text only - and might believe as though I have attempted to dismantle the argument entirely by falsely equating the experience of women with those experiencing racism. I do not wish to do so, as that would be a fallacy in and of itself. I merely tried to show that the reasoning used was clearly open to challenge and should be reflected upon.