All of us who have taken heterodox positions on even a single issue are liable to be tarred using accusations of guilt by association. Because I think that trans-identifying men should not be allowed to compete in sports against (biological) women, and that such trans people therefore don’t have exactly the same unlimited “rights” as biological women, I am therefore often called a “transphobe”, allied with those nutjobs who don’t want trans people to have any rights—or even allied with Nazis. This of course is not an argument, but a simple slur that avoids the ethical issues, and it’s thoughtless, though such arguments do convince some of the witless. (If you want to see a site whose whole method is to go after people—especially Steve Pinker—by showing who they’ve met or are otherwise associated with, go here. The author of that site appears to know nothing of science, but uses association with hereditarians as a sign of being an overall horrible person: a “ghoul” or a “grifter.” LOL.)
Alan Sokal has pointed out the stupidity of guilt-by-association arguments in a short piece in The Critic (click below, or find it archived here):
Sokal’s introductory story is about a 12-year-old boy demonized by his teacher because he made a comment that reminded her of Margaret Thatcher. And that’s how it goes: back then, being like Thatcher in even one misconstrued way was enough to damn you to hell. Sokal then segues, unsurprisingly, into the demonizing regularly practiced by sex and gender extremists:
I’m no fan of Margaret Thatcher — to put it mildly — but should it really be a surprise that on some issues she might have the same ideas as pinko me? Is it truly so difficult for us lefties to concede that the conservatives might occasionally — OK, very occasionally — be right? (And of course vice versa.) Have we all now become so politically tribal that we are unable — or simply unwilling — to evaluate ideas on their merits?
[Philosopher Arianne] Shahvisi’s recounting of this story did not, of course, come out of the blue. The context was an essay of hers in which she accused “gender critical feminists” (the scare quotes are hers) of “fairy-tale fear-mongering that puts them in league with the far right”. One reader objected to “yet another article belittling gender critical feminists in your pages”:
Many who consider themselves left-leaning progressives are branded as being ‘in league with the far right’ for their opposition to an ideology which they regard as a dangerously regressive move by patriarchal capitalism to seize control of, and profit from, the bodies of children (increasingly young girls) and women.
— adding, astutely, that “it is telling that trans men are relatively invisible in all this: no one is chanting ‘Trans men are men’”. Unfazed by this exposure of her conflation of two radically different ideologies, Shahvisi doubled down on guilt-by-association, using her childhood story as “evidence”.
Sokal shouldn’t need to point out the obvious, but this tactic is ubiquitous these days, and we shouldn’t even engage in argument with people who judge people’s views solely by who those people associate with, or what magazines they sometimes read:
There is, in reality, nothing surprising or objectionable about the fact that people who disagree on issues X, Y and Z might nevertheless find themselves in agreement on issue W. Indeed, it is the contrary — unanimity of views within each tribe, with no overlap between them — that ought to be surprising and disconcerting.
But serious ethical and pragmatic questions nevertheless arise whenever one finds that people with whom one is ordinarily in disagreement — and whose ultimate goals differ radically from one’s own — may be on the same side as oneself on one or more discrete questions of public policy. Should one cooperate with “the other side” on those particular issues? And if so, to what extent?
Well, I regularly find myself tucked in bed with extreme conservatives, but that, to me, is not a problem, I just give my own views, and work on my own, not really “cooperating” with anybody. That’s one way to at least mitigate the tarring by association. I’ll quote Sokal at length when he extends Shahvisi’s argument:
So let’s follow Shahvisi’s example, but first set the facts straight by specifying more accurately what each tribe believes. Gender-critical feminists want to abolish, or at least to weaken, prescriptive gender norms: they want to liberate people of both sexes to pursue their own interests and talents and to follow their predilections, without regard to sex-based stereotypes or statistics. Social conservatives want to strengthen prescriptive gender norms: to reestablish a world in which men are masculine and women are feminine, in the traditional senses of the words, and everyone is at least publicly heterosexual. (These are, it goes without saying, broad-strokes generalizations; there are of course many differences of emphasis and detail within each camp.) The two philosophies are thus diametrically opposed[1].
But, despite this deep overall conflict, can there sometimes exist small points of agreement between the two tribes? Yes, there can; and this gives rise to serious dilemmas.
Should gender-critical feminists cooperate with social conservatives to ensure that post-pubescent people engaged in competitive sports should play in the category of their biological sex, not their self-declared “gender identity”? Or to ensure that puberty blockers should not ordinarily be prescribed to minors as a treatment for gender dysphoria outside of registered clinical trials?
To me the answer is obvious, at least for myself: you cannot cooperate with extreme social conservatives without giving at least some credibility to their other views—views with which you don’t agree (I would note my pro-choice stands and lifelong affiliation as a Democrat). I will say what I think about puberty blockers (they shouldn’t be used till age 18 or so), and if conservatives want to quote me, fine. But I am not a member of any conservative organization that takes this stand, though I am friends with a group of like-minded liberals who have some gender-critical views.
Sokal winds up with the right conclusion, though: argue about policies and facts, not about associations. Since I’m somewhat hermitic by nature, I don’t really cooperate with many organizations, and those I cooperate with, like Heterodox Academy or FIRE, have views I largely agree with.
The answer to these questions is far from obvious. But worrying about guilt by association — and worrying, above all, about the opprobrium emanating from those who, like Shahvisi and Judith Butler[2], wield it as a political weapon — mislocates the problem. Instead, what is needed is level-headed political analysis. The first and primary question is: What are the merits and demerits of the proposed policy? And if it appears that the merits outweigh the demerits, then the second question is: Do the short-term gains from tactical cooperation with “the opposition” outweigh the potential long-term liabilities? The pros and cons need to be assessed and argued carefully, not assumed a priori. People who conclude in good faith that the balance falls on the “pro” side (or, for that matter, on the “con” side) may of course be wrong — and it is perfectly fair to criticise their conclusion and their reasoning — but they should not be tarred as traitors, sell-outs or worse.
By contrast, the whole point of invoking guilt by association is precisely to circumvent this discussion — not only to circumvent the second step, but above all to circumvent the first: to denigrate the proposed policy, and render it anathema to all fair-minded people, without having to address its merits and demerits. That approach — need this really be said? — ought to be repugnant to anyone who advocates a thoughtful politics.
h/t: Jez
I think Guilt by Association is particularly effective when it works with Everything is Political — in either case, a political operative is insinuating a preferred political opinion into some scenario.
The more clear, principled, and focused a scenario – e.g. a standard written piece by Pinker where I say to myself “damn, I wish I had written that!” (envy)- the more attractive as a means for advancing opposing or subversive political positions through e.g. identity politics… kind of like from the other direction though… as if there is some stunning secret knowledge the operative possesses.
In that way, this is sociological gnosticism.
Baroness Nicholson is a women’s rights activist and a Tory. I am a socialist. It’s ludicrous to say I won’t work with her on women’s rights because we disagree on many other things.
A while ago I made a meme that says this….
“You don’t have to agree with someone on every topic before you campaign with them on topics where you agree.
A socialist and a Tory can campaign together against child abuse, whilst also opposing each other on every other topic.
It’s called being an adult.
If you only ever stand with those who agree with you on everything then you will stand alone.”
The Baroness writes brilliantly witty letters that really pack a punch.
She was removed as honorary vice president of the Booker Prize in 2020 (her late husband had co-founded it in 1969) after she made allegedly “transphobic” remarks. This was achieved by the organisers of the Prize dissolving all honorary titles and positions, rather like FFRF recently did in the kerFFRFle.
Prior to all of that, she was diagnosed as deaf at age 16 (she’s now 83) and co-founded the predecessor to what is now the Lumos charity with JK Rowling in 2006.
She’s amazing. I’ve never met her in real life, but a friend has and said she’s just as charming when you meet her. She’s done terrific work for the women of Afghanistan and is familiar with many middle eastern countries, including Iraq.
One article called her Baroness Fearless.
https://www.politico.eu/article/baroness-fearless/
That’s an interesting article – thanks!
I agree that what really matters is facts and policies, not tribe. Guilt by association is not only lazy; it’s a form of dishonesty.
Wow. Where’d you find that Pinkerite site? All my favorite people are mentioned. Actually…. maybe a bit perverse… but I’m slightly annoyed I’m not on it. My column https://democracychronicles.org/author/david-anderson/ and articles have attracted some stone cold morons over the years.
Maybe I should “tip them off”? hehehee
D.A.
NYC
You need to associate more with Pinker. I found it because it linked to one of my posts, which automatically results in me getting an email with a pingback. I, of course, am one of the grifters and ghouls that this unhinged writer has mentioned.
According to Ms. Pinkerite, you are not just a grifter and ghoul but also anti-vaccine! I must have misread your blog…
Our host is probably an anti-vaxxer purely by association, I dare say!
Oh for chrissake, I am totally a PRO-VAXER! Anybody who says otherwise is a ghoulish grifter who does not know my work.
Indeed. Interesting that the trans issue seems so important to these types.
That “Pinkerite” is a known obsessive stalker and loon. She’s crazy, and chums around with quite a few regressives and antisemitic crazies on social media.
A bit ironic to post this comment here, on a thread devoted to decrying guilt by association. Or was this meant sarcastically?
As for guilt by association – the pinned post on her blog is an endorsement of PZ Meyers.
That tells you absolutely everything about that obsessive creeper.
I guess you just don’t see the irony of such comments in a thread decrying guilt by association. That’s quite interesting.
First, a minor nitpick, but which is important given that the vast majority are clueless about the reality of “gender affirming care”: “I will say what I think about puberty blockers (they shouldn’t be used till age 18 or so)…” Blockers are used prior to Tanner Stage 2, which generally ends in the 12-14 age range. They’re used effectively, although not without some side effects (and a lot of unknowns), in younger children with precocious puberty. (For more info: di-ag.org/interventions)
As to the key point, though, the fear of “guilt by association” is the prime reason we’re in the devastating mess we’re in on the medicalization of youth and vulnerable adults. When parents and others desperately wanted to share their stories of medical harm and coercion and others wanted to highlight the plight of incarcerated women victimized by males in women’s prisons, etc., only FOX News was willing to speak to them. So the choice was to stay silent as an act of self-preservation and ignore the moral imperative of protecting others from harm, or be seen as a collaborator with the enemy and have your message derided as right-wing lies and bigotry. There is nothing liberal about shutting out opposing opinion, regardless of where it comes from. As a society, we have largely lost the ability to hear heterodox arguments because so many rely on others for their opinions and therefore cannot, on their own, argue the merits of their own convictions.
Sorry, I meant hormone treatment until after 18 and no blockers at all until we know of their safety and long-term effects. Thanks for catching that.
“Putin talking points.” “Putin apologist.” Hey, look, guilt-by-association smears can be bipartisan!
When we move from the world of ideas and discussing policy to that of writing, passing, approving, and implementing policies and legislation, I notice that many people who otherwise scoff at guilt-by-association charges become increasingly uncomfortable. To put it in political terms, they would be fine with being liberals on the Supreme Court and occasionally voting with the conservative majority; they would cross the aisle and vote with a majority of Republicans on some legislation; fewer might establish a working relationship with a leading conservative to advance a narrowly-focused platform of legislation; very, very few would join an administration of the opposing party. The latter is unsurprising. It is those who cross the aisle in this way, moving from talking, discussing, writing, and pontificating to doing the concrete work of implementing ideas who come under the greatest attack. The curious thing about it all is the praise so often heaped on a person who crosses the aisle to either campaign for OUR side or to work in OUR administration. Liz Cheney, what a brilliant warmonger she is—or was. Those former Democrats who go by the names of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F Kennedy, Jr. will be the death of democracy, or they will return power to the people. Funny how this all works.
I have heard many times over the years that our democracy is in peril. I’ll believe it when I see people working together in the political realm as readily as they would to save a drowning child, put out a house fire, aid the victims of a car crash, or “rescue” a cat from a tree—all without asking, knowing, or caring about the political party of either the ones in need or of the fellow citizens who have come to aid. Because that is what people in our democracy do when there is real peril. They work together. Pity us all if we ever reach the point at which the child dies, the house burns, and the accident victims continue to bleed because we place party and tribe over our common humanity. If we do, then our democracy will be the least of anyone’s immediate concerns.
Where’s the reference to Putin here?
I readily use “Russian propaganda” to refer to arguments like “Putin only invaded Ukraine because of threatening NATO behaviour.”
It’s neither left nor right just Russian propaganda.
We see plenty of the guilt by association gambit from the Ctrl-Left, and actual truth means nothing. There was the KerFFRle thing, of course, where our host was name-dropped into far right politics. It was part of their official word on it the affair! Of course PZ always enjoyed the photograph with Pinker at a party sitting next to Epstein, not caring a whit that Epstein had crashed the party.
The message is clear, and it isn’t about being clueless or dense. It means: stfu or we can do this to you.
Indeed, GBA is indistinguishable from Cancel Culture. To misquote Ken Kesey, “You’re either on the bus or under the bus”.
Well, PZ likes to point at others as a deflection to his own shady history and the allegations made against him.
I have always enjoyed Alan Sokal since I bought his wonderful book (with J. Bricmont) on postmodern abuse of science. Richard Dawkins’ review if that book in Nature (ca. 1998/) was also a great read. Oh, that halcyon moment when it seemed that postmodern nonsense was on the wane.
So the question is, now more than ever, how to get past our own tribal responses to a realm of clear, careful thinking and compassionate, reality-based politics and policy?
There’s an appropriate appropriation of Ken Kesey above — the the bit about the bus, so let me properly quote Ken Kesey as I’ve read in interview and seen him remark in speech: “If you’re going to mess with it, you’ll get some on you.”
For me, it comes to mind when I’m weeding tall nettles. How does it apply to the rest of this discourse? Not sure, maybe it’s about self-awareness.
A close cousin to Guilt-by-Association is Fine-But-They’re- Going- to-Use -You.
The argument here is that even if you’re right — even if (gawd forbid) the Opposition is right — this can’t be pointed out. Doing so gives the bad guys credibility, it makes them seem like the kind of reasonable people who aren’t going to try to destroy everything good in the world and send it reeling into fear, chaos, and pure evil. It’s one issue, they argue. Make no deals with them. Don’t let them stand next to you for any reason, it leads to bad things down the road.
I think this is maybe a small improvement from the point of view of the person who’s no longer getting vilified— but it’s worse in that it’s both manipulative and yet another assault on the honest search for, and declaration of, truth. Snubbing truth for what’s supposed to be a nobler goal is itself just another way of making a deal with the devil.
Going a wee bit off topic here, The Critic website uses a distinctive font as seen in the image link above. I recognised it and grew a little excited. It’s called Baskerville, and used to be used for the nameplates and numbers of Great Western Railway steam locomotives. Then I noticed that the magazine is published by a company called Locomotive 6960, which would correspond to member of the Hall class of locos, Raveningham Hall, which still survives today and steams on the Severn Valley Railway. So I contacted them and got a reply from a deputy editor congratulating me on the detective work. There must be some enthusiasts for God’s Wonderful Railway on the staff, as he described it as part of their tribute to the GWR. Curiously, he was unaware of any decision to use the same font, and chalked it up to a subconscious effect!
There are interesting things around us, if only we notice them.
Liz Bradt (a leading Salem Democrat) referred to Seth Moulton (D-MA) as a “Nazi cooperator”. What did Seth Moulton do to deserve such condemnation. Quote “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
A “Nazi cooperator”, eh? Well, eeeek! See Sastra #8, above, re the the Opposition (“…it makes them seem like…reasonable people…) — but in this case it’s an example of a what I would hope to be an ally (a Democrat) seem — or demonstrate to be, this particular circumstance — bat-shit crazy.