Today's blog post is about the use of group identity to determine the efficacy of a claim. All too often people are being discredited because they have not experienced being in a particular group, and therefore can not speak about the group's trials and tribulations. In America, identity politics is at a fevered pitch and is being used as a weapon to defend ludicrous assertions. An example would be the current movement to abolish the Second Amendment because of a school shooting that happened in Florida. The group's premise is to solely blame guns for the shooting and ignore the other facts, such as the failure of the cops to stop this person at the scene, the failure of the cops to stop this person after more than forty visits to the person's house, and the failure of the FBI after they were informed about this person over a month in advance. Then the group will use their identity, as school shooting survivors, to defend their position against the Second Amendment and assert that their identity is what gives their position credibility. This logic is not only wrong, but dangerous as the group can attempt to discredit experts and statistics by simply stating they aren't part of the group.
Now, this isn't meant to suggest groups cannot have a correct assertion based on their identity, but rather they need to substantiate that assertion with something other than identity. If a small group of people from a particular ethnic background suggest that someone is racist, then they must provide evidence to support this claim. If the group's only argument for the claim is, they are all of a particular ethnic background, then that is not sufficient for determining whether or not the person is racist. However, if the group is able to provide evidence, such as all of them were denied service because of their background, then they can make the claim that the person is racist.
MLMs use a form of this tactic regularly to undermine the critical arguments of others about their "business". This type of red herring is referred to as an ad hominem attack, because they are choosing to attack the source rather than the claim. An example of an MLMer using their identity as a way to defend their position would be, "That person has never been in an MLM". This suggests that no amount of research or logic can validate a particular position against MLM because the critic hasn't been a part of the group. This type of reasoning is flawed because the person may hold that position based on research and information they have gathered from former MLMers, and experience with MLM does not solely determine the ability to understand MLM.
MLMers use these types of tactics because the research reflects very poorly on their "business opportunity". Any opportunity to distract from the statistics and analyses of MLM will be taken, because there is no honest way to defend the outrageous losses of MLM victims. Simply stating a person's position or claim is invalid because they aren't part of a group is not sufficient. Yet, MLMers successfully use this tactic because there is a lack of skepticism.
Here are some of the other ways in which MLMs use their identity to defend their position:
"That person has never owned their own business before." Funny, because an MLMer also doesn't own their business.
"That person has never invested in anything before." Also funny, because "investing" in MLM means buying products at retail.
"That person doesn't have the same mindset as a business owner". Interesting, an MLMer still has to listen to a boss, they just call them "upline".
Now, this isn't meant to suggest groups cannot have a correct assertion based on their identity, but rather they need to substantiate that assertion with something other than identity. If a small group of people from a particular ethnic background suggest that someone is racist, then they must provide evidence to support this claim. If the group's only argument for the claim is, they are all of a particular ethnic background, then that is not sufficient for determining whether or not the person is racist. However, if the group is able to provide evidence, such as all of them were denied service because of their background, then they can make the claim that the person is racist.
MLMs use a form of this tactic regularly to undermine the critical arguments of others about their "business". This type of red herring is referred to as an ad hominem attack, because they are choosing to attack the source rather than the claim. An example of an MLMer using their identity as a way to defend their position would be, "That person has never been in an MLM". This suggests that no amount of research or logic can validate a particular position against MLM because the critic hasn't been a part of the group. This type of reasoning is flawed because the person may hold that position based on research and information they have gathered from former MLMers, and experience with MLM does not solely determine the ability to understand MLM.
MLMers use these types of tactics because the research reflects very poorly on their "business opportunity". Any opportunity to distract from the statistics and analyses of MLM will be taken, because there is no honest way to defend the outrageous losses of MLM victims. Simply stating a person's position or claim is invalid because they aren't part of a group is not sufficient. Yet, MLMers successfully use this tactic because there is a lack of skepticism.
Here are some of the other ways in which MLMs use their identity to defend their position:
"That person has never owned their own business before." Funny, because an MLMer also doesn't own their business.
"That person has never invested in anything before." Also funny, because "investing" in MLM means buying products at retail.
"That person doesn't have the same mindset as a business owner". Interesting, an MLMer still has to listen to a boss, they just call them "upline".
It is an unusual but interesting thing to observe. I used to participate on an Amway related forum some years ago and the Amway defenders used to always say my experience was too dated or too old to be relevant. I used to ask what changed about Amway that would invalidate my viewpoint? To that question I would hear crickets.
ReplyDeleteConversely, people who said positive things about Amway were never questioned or told that their experiences were dated or old. It's a double standard.
When you think about it, the Amway 6-4-2 or 9-4-2 plan is still around. 2-5 years, or is it now 5-7 years? Basically it's all the same or at least the same concept. The tools scam is alive and well not much has changed there either.
I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why Amway and MLM is a good idea and a sustainable way to make an income. Especially when some diamonds have been exposed through bankruptcy, etc. showing that their income is nowhere near what they lead to you believe.
Joe --
DeleteThank you for bringing another form of this ad hominem. There are many versions, but the underlying concept is the same. I'm not surprised they didn't have a rebuttal lined up for your follow up question. They were probably hoping their programmed response would be enough to shut down your critical point(s).
The most interesting part about people that don't question those that share the popular or "correct" opinion is, they are usually the best to question. What I mean by this is, it would be very interesting to figure out why they hold that opinion and if they can substantiate it.
I think Amway is more interested in rebranding their "business" instead of fixing underlying issues. I may be dealing with a similar issue in regards to "Team Phoenix", as it looks like they may have disbanded and transformed into "Digital Genius Lab". I'm still in the process of investigating the scam.
I think we both know you will never receive that argument. The idea that people can make a sustainable income based on recruitment, or "helping others" as they like to put it, is the fundamental flaw with MLM.
"Identity politics" is a dangerous intellectual disease based on a denial of human brotherhood and understanding.
ReplyDeleteAccording to identity politics, an American historian can't write about Chinese history, and a Christian literary critic can't write a commentary on a novel by a Jew. Whites can't write anything about blacks, and heterosexuals can't say anything about homosexuals. It's so damned absurd that you want to laugh, if it weren't so vicious.
Anonymous --
DeleteThank you for your comment, and I completely agree! "Identity Politics" is the destruction of logic and reason, and is designed to destroy critical thought and discussion.
I have a co-worker that loves to talk about politically charged topics, as I'm sure you do as well, and he tried to pull this crap on me the other day. The conversation devolved so badly into, "I'm white, therefore I can't understand his plight.", and I darn near lost my mind. This idea of systemic racism, mixed with the inability for it ever to be resolved because nobody can understand, leads to an infinite victim card.
One of my favorite situations for "Identity Politics" involves group crossover. For example, a white male is considered privileged, yet as soon as that white male puts a dress on and decides to change their gender they become victims. Does that mean that every white male should start wearing dresses to avoid being stigmatized? What if they are a white male stockbroker by day and a drag queen by night, are they both privileged and victims depending on the time of day? It's amazing how quickly "Identity Politics" can snowball into chaos.