Proof by Assertion of Blindness

This seems like a logical fallacy, but I can’t quite pin it down. It has elements of ad hominem, and correlation = causation, but seems a bit different. I’m not sure.

The fallacy might be thought of as Proof by Other’s Blindness. I need not prove a point if I can simply persuade you or others that you’re blinded and just can’t see it.

Like many logical fallacies, this has a sleight-of-hand “grain of sense” to it. There is a line from a 1968 Marshall McLuhan book, War and Peace in the Global Village. “One thing about which fish know exactly nothing is water, since they have no anti-environment which would enable them to perceive the element they live in.”

Okay, there is some merit to this. Understanding often occurs by comparison. And if there is nothing to compare to? It seems to me we can become so accustomed to an environment or culture that we don’t notice the irrationality of some point – we have no “anti-environment” for comparison. For millennia slavery was everywhere considered beneficial, even for slaves.

An example: “You’re a homophobe. I know where you grew up, I know your parents and friends are homophobes, your church was, that’s the culture you were in. You’re a homophone, but you just can’t see it because you’ve been immersed in the ideology for so long.” It may be that you are a homophobe, but I don’t have to provide any evidence of your thoughts or words or behavior, I can just claim that you don’t see it . And if I can bring about a bit of uncertainty, then a little shaming will also go a long way, and I won’t have to prove anything. 

Maybe it’s just a version of correlation = causation. What say you?

Let's look at this example:

You’re a homophobe. I know where you grew up, I know your parents and friends are homophobes, your church was, that’s the culture you were in. You’re a homophone, but you just can’t see it because you’ve been immersed in the ideology for so long.

Claim: Person A is a "homophobe"

The is no reason given why person A is a homophobe, just the assertion that they are. The part that they "cannot see it" is irrelevant to the argument. So there is technically no error in reasoning here... there is simply no reasoning.

At it's core, this might be avoiding the issue by using what can be argued is a red herring .

The scenario you've described can be best understood as a combination of logical fallacies and cognitive biases, rather than fitting perfectly into any single category like "Proof by Assertion of Blindness." Let's break down the components of this reasoning and identify the potential fallacies and biases at play:

1. **Ad Hominem Fallacy**: This occurs when the argument is directed against a person's character rather than addressing the substance of their claim. In your example, labeling someone a homophobe based on their background attacks their character instead of focusing on any actual statements or behavior that may support or refute the claim.

2. **Genetic Fallacy**: This fallacy involves judging something as good or bad based on its origin rather than its current meaning or context. By attributing beliefs to a person purely because of their upbringing or environment, you're committing this fallacy. It dismisses the possibility of individual change or self-awareness beyond one's origins.

3. **Confirmation Bias**: Once a judgment is made about someone (e.g., labeling them a homophobe), there's a tendency to look for evidence that confirms this belief while ignoring evidence to the contrary. This biases perception and deepens the conviction without necessarily being based on factual evidence.

4. **Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)**: This occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion. The statement "You are a homophobe because you were raised in a homophobic environment, and you can't see it because you're blinded by that environment" assumes the conclusion (homophobia) without independent evidence.

5. **Disponibility Heuristic**: Relating to the "fish in water" metaphor, this heuristic suggests that people over-rely on immediate examples that come to mind when evaluating a topic. Just because someone was raised in a particular environment doesn't necessarily mean they embody that environment's values; sometimes, the most readily available information (e.g., their background) is overly relied upon.

To conclude, while your scenario offers insights into how environmental factors can blind individuals to certain beliefs or biases they might hold, it fails to provide substantive evidence or logical support for such claims. Instead, it relies on assumptions based on background information, which can be misleading without further corroboration from observable behavior or explicit statements. It is crucial to distinguish between assumptions about bias and verifiable evidence of belief or prejudice.

There are too many unsupported or accepted premises here to do an analysis.