The Perfect Fallacy

“No X is perfectly free from Y; therefore, there is nothing wrong with injecting X full of Y.”

e.g. “Entertainment is never fully free from politics; therefore, it is good to make entertainment totally ideological.”
Everyone can see the error in

“No kitchen is ever perfectly free of germs; therefore, there is no need to have a clean kitchen, and in fact, you should make your kitchen is disease-ridden as possible!”
Things like “apolitical” and “objective” and “unbiased” and “impartial” are IDEALS which serve to REGULATE our conduct.

While it is true we are NOT PERFECT, it is nevertheless GOOD and RIGHT to approximate to ideals as best we can.
Science, for example, only fails to be “objective” due to human failings. But that is nothing intrinsic to scientific knowing, which is, in principle, objective knowing — something if often succeeds at.

It is hard to see what bias is in “Water is H₂O."
And it is OBVIOUSLY BAD to make scientific knowing subordinate to politics — Lysenkoism is the model here.

Trofim Lysenko’s “Marxist” theories in biology led to mass starvation in the Soviet Union, because they failed to model reality.
Anyone who wants to inject politics into science under cover of “science has always been political” is committing the Perfect Fallacy.

“Science has always been political” only means “human scientists have never been perfectly apolitical, although that is the ideal.”
And you CAN’T GET TO “we should subordinate science to politics” FROM “scientists have never been perfectly apolitical.”
Apply it to comic books:

1 “Comic books have never been perfectly apolitical”

2 “Therefore, comic books should be reduced to vehicles of propaganda for political ideology.”

Captain America punching Hitler is arguably not so much a POLITICAL statement as it is a MORAL statement.

Hitler surely counts, after all, as “a bad guy.”

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

4 Jul
Five Things Everyone Needs to Know about Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theory rests on the unfalsifiable claim that racism exists everywhere, in every person and every institution, so all white people are inherently complicit in racism and all nonwhite people are inherently victims. This first dogma of CRT cannot be questioned.
Critical Race Theory is the opposite of Martin Luther King’s dream. CRT teaches that people should be judged on their race, which it holds to be the only or most important thing about a person, instead of the content of their character. CRT regards Dr. King as tool of racism.
Read 6 tweets
2 Jul
In our judicial system, no one can be forced to incriminate himself or herself.

An American has the right to remain silent regarding any matter that might lead to self-incrimination.

We do not have a right to withhold testimony touching on *other matters* however.
You can be *required* to give testimony on a matter regarding which you cannot incriminate yourself. This is key.

Because, if a prosecutor *grants you immunity from prosecution*, you *can be compelled to give testimony that would, if not for said grant, incriminate you.
So, the Cosby problem is this: Cosby was *compelled* to give testimony that was, in itself, incriminating, but was not incriminating solely because he had immunity.

But they used his testimony against him anyway.
Read 5 tweets
1 Jul
Bill Cosby does not deserve to be free according to justice — but he does in line with human Law.

We cannot make exceptions to DUE PROCESS even for the sake of justice, because then exceptions will be made by calling it “justice” whether it is or is not—and there is no justice.
The law, which upholds the right to due process, only approximates justice. And it does it by treating everyone the same.

We make use of universal principles of the law and particular circumstances of each case in trial.
Universal principles respect our human equality of rights. They also, however, treat everyone alike: both the guilty and the innocent.

It offends our sense of perfect justice that the guilty should be shielded by rights—but because we are not angels, it is THE BEST WE CAN DO.
Read 6 tweets
29 Jun
@benshapiro described the Woke as “race essentialists.”

He’s not wrong, exactly, but in a way, he is. Enough to clarify.

Race essentialism is the THESIS, race non-essentialism is the ANTITHESIS, and what the Woke hold is the SYNTHESIS. They both are and are not essentialists.
@benshapiro The way the Woke ARE race essentialists is that the treat race is as indelible characteristic of a person that marks and defines them, that cannot ever be escaped (consider how the Woke view transracialism).

The Woke aren’t race essentialists by not appealing to essence.
@benshapiro So the Woke can claim *technically* not to be essentialists, because essence isn’t what does the work for them, the same work that essence would do, but rather IDENTITY does the work.
Read 5 tweets
26 Jun
Lewis Gordon holds that only “ONE race exists, and that race is ‘Negro’.”

I’m going to explain why Gordon’s conclusion is a non sequitur, and in the process explain why one can’t correlate ANCESTRY with RACE.
Gordon is right that the study of human genome shows all humans originated in Africa.

“From a genetic point of view, there is indeed one human species that originated in a single region.”

So how does he get that these ancestral humans were NEGROS?
Because they were from Africa, of course.

Everyone knows that Negros come from Africa.

Africa has a special Negro-making property.
Read 12 tweets
24 Jun
This fallacy should be given a name.

I will show why it is a fallacious argument by way of analogy.
It is a highly complex matter to sort out John Locke’s political arguments, especially in dialogue with Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. It is graduate level work.

BUT — it is not hard to teach children that democracy is good and all men are created equal and have equal rights.
That is to say, one *can* (and we have traditionally done) teach children the PRINCIPLES and CONSEQUENCES of a broadly Lockean theory of political right. That is basically Americanism.

It's not necessary to teach the most difficult Lockean arguments re: representative democracy.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!