The solution I was referring to was disrupting malformed logic in thought patterns (racism).
Reconsider my original premise:
“Hey we’ve got the laziest middle Easterners working for us, they’re all so shitty”
If you respond with “The real question is why does the company hire shitty people?”
You’re not refuting the malformed logic. You’re not disrupting the thought pattern. You’re introducing new variables and shifting blame.
Carry that logic forward from the point of view of the person asking the question, they’ll say “wow, you’re right: we should stop hiring people from the middle east”
Which, I would assume isn’t the direction you intended to steer someone’s thinking.
Again, it isn’t complicated and it’s stilly to make it complicated. This person observes two things and then connects the two as being related (quality of worker vs skin colour). They just aren’t related. That’s it. If they’re a bad worker they’re a bad worker, why ask someone to reject what they’re seeing with their own eyes? It just isn’t BECAUSE of skin colour.
It quite literally is the malformed logic being: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Nowhere else in logic do people refute that fallacy by trying to introduce new mitigating arguments. It’s fundamentally flawed from the outset and can be directly refuted.
It’s impossible to “refute the malformed logic” that not all Indian people are lazy bad workers because that argument is just a) factually incorrect unless, as I said, they attempted to work with all Indian people available to them, and b) made, I would argue in bad faith.
You’re going to have to explain to me how it’s justifying racism to say that someone being a bad worker and the colour of one’s skin are completely unrelated to one another.
The solution I was referring to was disrupting malformed logic in thought patterns (racism).
Reconsider my original premise:
If you respond with “The real question is why does the company hire shitty people?”
You’re not refuting the malformed logic. You’re not disrupting the thought pattern. You’re introducing new variables and shifting blame.
Carry that logic forward from the point of view of the person asking the question, they’ll say “wow, you’re right: we should stop hiring people from the middle east”
Which, I would assume isn’t the direction you intended to steer someone’s thinking.
Again, it isn’t complicated and it’s stilly to make it complicated. This person observes two things and then connects the two as being related (quality of worker vs skin colour). They just aren’t related. That’s it. If they’re a bad worker they’re a bad worker, why ask someone to reject what they’re seeing with their own eyes? It just isn’t BECAUSE of skin colour.
It quite literally is the malformed logic being: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Nowhere else in logic do people refute that fallacy by trying to introduce new mitigating arguments. It’s fundamentally flawed from the outset and can be directly refuted.
That’s a lot of words to justify being racist.
It’s impossible to “refute the malformed logic” that not all Indian people are lazy bad workers because that argument is just a) factually incorrect unless, as I said, they attempted to work with all Indian people available to them, and b) made, I would argue in bad faith.
You’re going to have to explain to me how it’s justifying racism to say that someone being a bad worker and the colour of one’s skin are completely unrelated to one another.