This is something I see happen far too often on this forum. Someone makes an analogy to make a point, and then are attacked with posts like:
"Wait, you think X is the same as Y ?????"
"Wow, saying X is the same as Y is very offensive dude."
"Nice false equivalence you got there."
Except, no-one was saying X is equal to Y, they were drawing a comparison in the form of an analogy. An analogy is not supposed to be exactly the same as the analogous example provided, otherwise there would be no need to make an analogy. The point of an analogy is to use the areas in which the two situations or things are similar in certain respects, those respects key to the argument being made, in order to help people understand. The two things may be vastly different in other respects, or especially degree.
Degree is a big one, because often someone will make an analogy to a much more serious example. Often the serious or extreme example being used is something that people have a very clear cut moral view on. Using this example can help present the point you are trying to make, without claiming that the two situations are equal in terms of severity or impact.
Usually this happens with analogies made to subjects with a strong emotional impact such as: Nazis, the Holocaust, Hitler, Slavery, Rape, Abortion, etc.. When making an analogy to one of these subjects it is going to be very rare to actually be discussing something of equal severity. A person making an analogy to these is not making an equivalence, but may be drawing a comparison to similar aspects but in a much lesser degree.
This does not mean that all analogies are good though. Absolutely there are bad analogies, where the comparison just doesn't work and the two situations are not at all similar. But don't get caught up in pointing out unrelated, tangential details between the two things being compared. And don't get so caught up in the degree of severity between the two things. Point out bad analogies because they don't work.
I think if you respond to an analogy by accusing someone of making an equivalence you are de facto arguing in bad faith. You can claim in analogy is bad, doesn't work, or is in bad taste, but accusing someone of making an equivalence is not fair or accurate.
In accordance with that though, perhaps avoid analogies that you know are going to send people into an emotional tizzy. Don't always jump straight to Hitler or slavery for your analogy. Even if it does work in the limited scope you are intending, it may have the unintended effect of making people angry.
"Wait, you think X is the same as Y ?????"
"Wow, saying X is the same as Y is very offensive dude."
"Nice false equivalence you got there."
Except, no-one was saying X is equal to Y, they were drawing a comparison in the form of an analogy. An analogy is not supposed to be exactly the same as the analogous example provided, otherwise there would be no need to make an analogy. The point of an analogy is to use the areas in which the two situations or things are similar in certain respects, those respects key to the argument being made, in order to help people understand. The two things may be vastly different in other respects, or especially degree.
Degree is a big one, because often someone will make an analogy to a much more serious example. Often the serious or extreme example being used is something that people have a very clear cut moral view on. Using this example can help present the point you are trying to make, without claiming that the two situations are equal in terms of severity or impact.
Usually this happens with analogies made to subjects with a strong emotional impact such as: Nazis, the Holocaust, Hitler, Slavery, Rape, Abortion, etc.. When making an analogy to one of these subjects it is going to be very rare to actually be discussing something of equal severity. A person making an analogy to these is not making an equivalence, but may be drawing a comparison to similar aspects but in a much lesser degree.
This does not mean that all analogies are good though. Absolutely there are bad analogies, where the comparison just doesn't work and the two situations are not at all similar. But don't get caught up in pointing out unrelated, tangential details between the two things being compared. And don't get so caught up in the degree of severity between the two things. Point out bad analogies because they don't work.
I think if you respond to an analogy by accusing someone of making an equivalence you are de facto arguing in bad faith. You can claim in analogy is bad, doesn't work, or is in bad taste, but accusing someone of making an equivalence is not fair or accurate.
In accordance with that though, perhaps avoid analogies that you know are going to send people into an emotional tizzy. Don't always jump straight to Hitler or slavery for your analogy. Even if it does work in the limited scope you are intending, it may have the unintended effect of making people angry.
Last edited:
