Until now, I didn’t realize there was a name a peculiar type of argument, but from now on I will recognize it as a “Kafka Trap”:
In The Trial, Kafka presents a totalitarian world where a man is arrested by unspecified authorities and accused of an unspecified crime. Kafka traps occurs when people are accused of something but their denials are interpreted as absolute proof that the accusations are true. For example,
You are an liar!”
“No I am not.”
“That proves it. Liars always deny they are liars!”
Kafka Traps seem to work because they are circular, thus evidence-free, thus unfalsifiable. You can expose the fallaciousness of Kafka Traps by making some simple substitutions, e.g.,:
“You are a jelly donut!”
“No, I am not.”
“That proves it. Jelly donuts always deny they are jelly donuts!”
Now consider this argument:
“You are a racist!”
“No, I am not.”
“That proves it. Racists always deny they have a problem!”
This argument that all white people are racists has been employed by Robin DiAngelo:
Yes, all white people are complicit with racism. There will be umbrage and upset. People will insist that they are not racist. That I don’t know them … ‘I’ve traveled a lot. I speak lots of languages … I had a Black roommate in college. I’m a minority myself.’ This is the kind of evidence that many white people used to exempt themselves from that system. It’s not possible to be exempt from it.
These Kafka Traps are fact-free pseudo-arguments that remind me of St. Anselm’s alleged proof for the existence of God (“That than which nothing greater can be conceived”) and St. Thomas Aquinas’ Contingency proof for the existence of God (“even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an uncaused cause. The only thing missing from these three fallacious arguments is the word “Abracadabra!”
To escape a Kafka Trap, you can also demand evidence for these extraordinary claims, then (after no evidence is produced) invoke Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
If you are facing an evidence-free claim that you are a racist, simply flip the argument 180 by substituting “maker of false accusations” for “racist”:
“You are a maker of false accusations!”
“No, I am not.”
“That proves it. Makers of false accusations always deny they are makers of false accusations!”
I answer all accusations with, “Maybe.”
Fascinating. Though I know you in person and I have trouble thinking that you are often the target of accusations . . .
The appropriate response to, “Liars always deny they are liars!” is, “I am a liar.” Think about it.
Excellent judo, Edgar.
Elgar, with your suggested response you give your accuser a victory – they started with that assumption and you agreed with it. they respond: “everyone! he admitted that he is a liar!”
I have a question: there is no explicit explanation of governing structure of the society in “The trial”, why do you suggest that this society is totalitarian one? Franz Kafka himself had no experience of totalitarian life.
I respectfully submit that a dimension of Robin DiAngelo’s argument is ignored. Without context, the quoted passage is indeed true. But there is a complex psychology and base tribalism in the background of today’s civilization, not just between whites and others in America, but between developed and developing societies worldwide. That’s what the book discusses.
Whites in America aren’t racist because they deny being racist; DiAngelo argues that they are racist because they constructed an elaborate system to advance their social and economic aims, all on a foundation of race inequality and in the name of god. Now, you don’t need to agree with that. I don’t agree with all of it, but it informs me that there is a perspective other than mine, and it might have merits.
Yep, white people got together, invented an elaborate system, made sure we were all in on the scheme, kept it quiet and hidden for decades, and did it all for money and likes. You figured out the white man’s ploy. Good job!
Back to the drawing board fellow crackers, the jig is up. We have to find a new way to keep the brown man down.
It might have merits, yes. We should evaluate it using the principles of epistemology we use for everything else. Scientific evidence? Data? Willingness to be interrogated? Openness to scrutiny is a big element of classical liberalism enshrined in the first amendment. Any ideology serving up shame for inquiry is dogma. The truth needs no such protection.