Crimes Against Logic

Offender: Michael Cohen (Trump’s Lawyer)

Charges:

1. Immunity by Association Fallacy
2. Two counts of Appeal to Overly Narrow Definition, a.k.a. the Fallacy of Overly Narrow Definition

Donald Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen committed crimes against logic by presenting an argument on Twitter that attempts to absolve him of any accusations of racism. He tweeted the following message accompanied by eight photos of himself with various Black people:

“As the son of a Holocaust survivor, I have no tolerance for racism. Just because I support POTUS @realDonaldTrump doesn’t make me a racist.”

The overall argument commits what I call the “Immunity by Association Fallacy” — where one claims their views or principles are immune from certain types of criticism simply because they have an association with a member of the group in question.

Cohen commits this fallacy by posting photos of himself with Black people. The photos show him in association with Black people and are presented as granting him immunity from any accusations of racism toward Black people.

He also commits two counts of “Appeal to Overly Narrow Definition,” which is one of several definitional fallacies — also called “Fallacies of Definition.” The three most common fallacies of definition are:

• “Appeal to Overbroad Definition,” also known as the “Fallacy of Too Broad”
• “Appeal to Overly Narrow Definition,” also known as the “Fallacy of Too Narrow”
• “Appeal to Mutually Exclusive Definition”

The one we will be discussing is the “Appeal to Overly Narrow Definition.”

First Count

Michael Cohen commits this fallacy on the first count by using photos of himself with various Black people to suggest that those photos prove he is not racist. The only way these photos would support his position is if the term “racist” were defined as someone who is incapable of associating with Black people at all.

How to attack this argument:

Here are two ways to expose the flaws in this line of reasoning.

The first is to provide historical examples of people who engaged in racist behavior or supported racist positions while maintaining associations with Black people. Here is one clear example, using a quote from a famous person who endorsed an arguably racist politician in Britain named Enoch Powell. Look up Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech, delivered at a Conservative Association meeting in 1968. But you can judge the following quote without even being familiar with Enoch Powell:

“I don’t want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch’s our man. I think Enoch’s right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a Black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I’m into racism. It’s much heavier, man. F—ing wogs, man. F—ing Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The Black wogs and coons and Arabs and f—ing Jamaicans don’t belong here, we don’t want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don’t want any Black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. We are a white country. I don’t want f—ing wogs living next to me with their standards. This is Great Britain, a white country. What is happening to us, for f—‘s sake?”

Would you agree that someone who advocates for a pure white ethno-state — by expelling all non-white people and preventing non-white immigration — is a racist? Would you agree that the person who made that statement is a racist?

That speech endorsing Enoch Powell was delivered by a famous rock musician who had a Black girlfriend, had Black friends, and championed Black music at the time. That musician was Eric Clapton. The outburst took place during a 1976 concert and later helped inspire the Rock Against Racism movement. In retrospect, here is what Eric Clapton had to say about himself during that era, speaking at a Q&A in London following the screening of his biographical documentary, Eric Clapton: Life in 12 Bars:

“I was so ashamed of who I was, a kind of semi-racist, which didn’t make sense. Half of my friends were Black, I dated a Black woman, and I championed Black music.”

Another example is Donald Sterling, the former owner of the NBA’s Los Angeles Clippers. He was a recipient of an NAACP award and was about to be presented with another one — until a recording was released by his mistress in which he made clear that he did not want her associating with Black people or bringing Black people to basketball games. Additionally, a 2003 housing discrimination lawsuit against him contained statements from him to employees describing Black people as smelling bad and attracting vermin.

The second way to attack this argument is to use the definition of a misogynist as a parallel comparison. A misogynist is defined as someone who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women. Would you agree that someone who is racist against Black people could similarly be defined as someone who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against Black people?

If we applied the overly narrow definition of a misogynist as someone who, out of their dislike, contempt, and strong prejudice against women, is entirely incapable of associating with women — then a misogynist would have to be either a gay male with zero attraction to or association with any women, or a heterosexual male who has committed to a life of strict celibacy while socializing exclusively with men. If we extend this narrow definition to include self-hatred, then a heterosexual woman could theoretically qualify as a misogynist — but only if she socialized exclusively with men and had absolutely no association with any women whatsoever.

The flaw in this reasoning becomes obvious. It is fairly common for misogynists to have wives, girlfriends, and regular associations with women. One could even argue that simply being born of a woman gives you an association with a woman by birthright — and therefore, by this logic, no one could ever be a misogynist. Claiming that having a female relative proves you cannot be a misogynist should equally undermine the logic that having a Black associate is sufficient evidence that someone is not a racist.

---

Second Count

Cohen’s second count of “Appeal to Overly Narrow Definition” involves using his ethnic heritage to suggest that this alone is evidence he is not racist or tolerant of racism toward an entirely different group. The only way his being the son of a Holocaust survivor serves as evidence that he is not racist is if “racist” is narrowly defined as: a member of a historically oppressed group is incapable of being racist toward another historically oppressed group.

How to attack this:

Bring up historical instances where members of an oppressed group voluntarily assisted an oppressor’s agenda or engaged in racist practices against another oppressed group.

One powerful example is the Native American tribes who enslaved Africans in the United States. To be clear, we are not referring to Natives who may have held slaves for the purpose of protecting them — we are referring to those who engaged in brutal slave ownership comparable to the worst white slave owners. Five Native American nations enslaved Africans: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. These five nations developed their own versions of slave codes, and when they relocated or expanded into new territories, they reestablished slavery there as well. They were so committed to the institution of slavery that when the Civil War broke out, all five nations sided with and fought for the Confederacy. The famous Cherokee Chief John Ross owned 100 African slaves. Now, given that Native Americans are themselves a historically oppressed group, could Chief John Ross claim that his membership in an oppressed group means he cannot be considered racist — even though he owned 100 African slaves and sided with the Confederacy? Based on the evidence, the answer is clearly no. You should reject any argument that membership in one oppressed group precludes someone from being racist toward another group.

An even stronger way to attack this:

Bring up historical instances where members of an oppressed group voluntarily assisted their own oppressors or engaged in racist practices against their own group.

Let’s examine two examples: Black slave owners and Jewish soldiers who fought alongside the Nazis.

Some Black people owned slaves as a means of protecting their relatives. Some free men purchased their wives; some free women purchased their husbands. When they had children, they registered them as property to shield them from the system. This was a way of gaming the law to protect loved ones. These individuals were not racist — and they are not who I am referring to here.

Now let’s discuss the ones who were.

John Carruthers Stanly was a former slave who purchased his own freedom — only to later become a slave owner himself. He owned three plantations with a total of 163 slaves. He only granted freedom to the six children he fathered with one of his slaves. What makes his case even more troubling is that he hired white men to serve as overseers on his properties.

Consider also this statement made on the eve of the Civil War by Black slave owners in Louisiana:

“The free colored population of Louisiana own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land… and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism, no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana… they will fight for her in 1861 as they fought to defend New Orleans from the British in 1814.”

Could a white slave owner claim he cannot be racist because he is friends with John Carruthers Stanly? Could that same white slave owner claim he is not racist because he associates with the free colored slave owners of Louisiana? And could John Carruthers Stanly himself — who hired white overseers to manage his slaves — claim he cannot be called a racist simply because he is Black?

Now let’s discuss Hitler honoring Jewish soldiers who fought alongside the Nazis. Would anyone argue that Hitler and the German Nazis were not racist by citing their association with Jewish soldiers? Hermann Bendheim was invited to the German Consulate in Jerusalem, where representatives of the Third Reich in Palestine awarded him a badge of honor for his service in the German Army during World War I. Approximately 100,000 Jews fought on the German side in that war. Some were decorated for their service, and an elite few were even awarded the distinguished Cross of Honor.

---

Conclusion

Immunity by Association is a fallacy. A person’s character is determined by their own actions — not by who they associate with. And contrary to the old saying “show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are,” your friends and associates may not accurately reflect your true character at all.