Category: Politics

 

While a WOX can be created based entirely on lies, it can be useful to have some true claims as evidence for the WOX. Obviously, if adequate evidence existed to prove that X is under significant and sustained attack, then you would not need to create a WOX. Fortunately for starting a WOX, the United States has a population of about 330 million, so you can almost certainly find someone who did or said something that would constitute an attack on X. The odds are ever in your favor. You might wonder what you can do with but a few examples, since isolated incidents do not make a war. Fortunately, there are two time-honored fallacies you can use when you have evidence, yet not enough of it: Hasty Generalization and Anecdotal Evidence.

A hasty generalization is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough to adequately support that conclusion.  It has the following general form:

 

Premise 1:  Sample S (which is not large enough) is taken from population P.

Conclusion: Claim C is made about Population P based on S.

 

That this is a fallacy is easy to show with a fishing example. If you catch a small yellow perch in a lake, you would not be justified in believing that all (or even most) of the fish in the lake are small yellow perch. For all you know, there could be dozens of species of fish in the lake.

In the case of a WOX, here is how you would make a type of hasty generalization from a few examples of attacks on X:

 

Premise 1: There are a small number of examples of attacks on X.

Conclusion: There is significant and sustained war on X.

 

The “logic” here is that having a few examples of attacks “proves” that there are many examples of attacks and thus there is a WOX. This is obviously bad logic is on par with inferring that because you saw one fish in a lake it must be teaming with fish. Now, to the Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence.

The Fallacy of Anecdotal evidence is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on an anecdote (a story) about one or a very small number of cases. The fallacy is also committed when someone rejects reasonable statistical data supporting a claim in favor of a single example or small number of examples that go against the claim. Some consider this to just be a variation on hasty generalization.  It has the following forms:

 

Form One

Premise 1: Anecdote A is told about a member (or small number of members) of Population P.

Conclusion: Claim C about Population P based on Anecdote A is true.

 

Form Two

Premise 1: Reasonable statistical evidence S exists for general claim C.

Premise 2:  Anecdote A is presented that is an exception to or goes against general claim C.

Conclusion: General claim C is false.

 

For a WOX, you would use the following form:

 

Premise 1: Anecdote A, about an attack on X, is told about Population P.

Conclusion: Attacks on X are widespread in Population P.

 

This fallacy is like hasty generalization and a similar sort of error is committed, namely drawing an inference based on a sample that is inadequate in size relative to the conclusion. The main difference between hasty generalization and anecdotal evidence is that the fallacy anecdotal evidence involves using a story (anecdote) as the sample.

People often fall victim to this fallacy because stories and anecdotes have more psychological influence than statistical data. This leads people to infer that what is true in an anecdote must be true of the whole population or that an anecdote justifies rejecting statistical evidence in favor of said anecdote. Not surprisingly, people most commonly accept this fallacy because they would prefer the anecdote be true for the whole population. For example, a person who smokes might try to convince herself that smoking will not hurt her because her Aunt Jane smoked a dozen cigars a day and lived until she was 104.

Fortunately, while the logic is bad, this method has advantages:

 

  • When anyone checks your examples, they will be found to be true.
  • It avoids the disadvantages of lying.
  • Statistics are what they are, but you can share the anecdotes you want to tell.
  • Statistics require that people think, stories make people feel.

 

Anyone who checks on your examples will find they are true, which can deter them from looking beyond them. If you are criticized, you can “defend” yourself by focusing on the fact that your examples (or stories) are real and you are technically not lying. By being able to pick your examples and stories you can shape the narrative as you wish. Best of all, as a matter of general psychology people tend to be bored by statistics and moved by stories. You can probably find some very emotionally charged stories and take advantage of the Fallacy of Misleading Vividness. This is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. It relies on the psychological force of the drama of the examples rather than on the logical weight of evidence. It can be considered a variation on Hasty Generalization/Anecdotal Evidence.

 While useful, these fallacies do have their disadvantages:

 

  • If someone checks, they will find you only have a few examples or stories.
  • While you are not technically lying, you are being dishonest.

 

Fortunately, your target audience is unlikely to critically assess whether you have enough examples or not for your generalization. If the generalization matches their biases, fears, or expectations, they will tend to be moved by the psychological force of the fallacy and ignore that it is logically flawed. Those who are willing and able to engage your generalization critically are not your target audience and their criticisms will probably be ignored by your target audience or even taken as more “evidence” you are right. As was discussed with religious and moral concerns about lying, these concerns can easily be dismissed or worked around.

As an example of how to use this method, imagine that you wanted to claim that there is a War on White Men in America. With such a large population, you can easily find a few examples of people who explicitly attack (in word or in deed) white men simply for being white men. If you are lucky (which you probably will be) the examples will be especially dramatic, and the “perpetrators” will be members of groups your target audience already fears or hates (thus allowing you to cash in on stereotypes and demonizing). These few incidents can be generalized into a full-scale war, thus getting your WOX started. You can also make good (evil) use of dog whistles here, which will be the subject of the last essay in this series.

In the previous essay in this series, I discussed how you could provide “examples” of a War on X by using hyperbole and making straw men. In this essay, we’ll look at how you can use the fallacy of incomplete evidence to “prove” there is a WOX.

The fallacy of incomplete evidence occurs when available evidence that would count against a claim is ignored or suppressed. It also occurs when only evidence in support of a claim is selected (“cherry picked”). It has the following form:

 

Premise 1: Evidence E is given for claim C.

Premise 2: There is no available evidence A that would significantly count against C (but A is available and is ignored or suppressed).

Conclusion: Therefore, C is true.

 

Unlike many other fallacies, this fallacy does not arise because the presented premises fail to logically support the conclusion. Instead, the error is that the person making the argument fails (intentionally or accidentally) to consider available evidence would count against their conclusion.  The fallacy does its work by conveying the impression to the target that the premises are both true and complete (that salient evidence has not been ignored or suppressed).

There are two factors that must be considered when determining whether the fallacy has been committed. The first is whether the suppressed or ignored evidence is significant enough to outweigh the presented evidence. That some salient information has been left out is not enough to establish the fallacy has been committed. What is needed is that the suppressed or ignored evidence would make a meaningful difference in the strength of the argument. If not, the fallacy is not committed.  But in this context, you will want to commit the fallacy. You will need to determine which evidence would count against your claim and then ignore it. And hope your audience will do so as well.

The second is whether the (allegedly) suppressed or ignored evidence was reasonably available to the person committing the fallacy.  If someone “ignored” evidence that they could not reasonably be expected to know, then they would not be committing this fallacy.  Sorting out what a person can reasonably be expected to know can be challenging and thus there can be considerable dispute over whether the fallacy was committed. In this context, the evidence will obviously be available to you as you will be knowingly ignoring or suppressing the evidence.

When using this fallacy to start a WOX, one useful variant is to ignore inconvenient facts about the past. This version has the following form:

 

Premise 1:  Evidence E is given for the claim there is a WOX.

Premise 2: There is no available evidence that E occurred before the WOX and would thus meaningfully count against their being a WOX (but there actually is available evidence that E did occur well before the WOX).

Conclusion: Therefore, there is a WOX.

 

This method does have advantages:

 

  • The available evidence is what it is but the evidence you use is up to you.
  • The evidence used can be true and unmodified.

 

While reality is what it is, picking the evidence you wish to use and what you want to ignore makes it easier to build your argument. If you are starting a WOX, there will be available evidence against your claims, but you can ignore it. While lies, hyperbole and straw men have their advantages, the use of incomplete evidence allows you to use true claims while ignoring inconvenient truths. This can sometimes increase your credibility and using some truth makes it harder to debunk your claims about a WOX. But this method has some disadvantages:

 

  • There will, by the nature of the fallacy, be significant evidence against your claim.
  • This method is lying by omission and many moralities and religions condemn lying.

 

This method entails that there is significant evidence against your claim which means that debunkers are likely to find it. Fortunately, the usual target audience for a WOX is unlikely to engage the matter critically and some of them will be happy to be in on the fallacy. While you will not be fabricating evidence, you will be lying by omission, and many moralities and religions consider this unacceptable. Fortunately, as with lying in general, it is easy to work around this.

As an example of how to use incomplete evidence to start a WOX, consider how those pushing the War on Christmas use it. They point out, correctly, that people now use “Happy Holidays.” Making use of a straw man attack, they “infer” that the “real reason” this is occurring is because Christmas is under attack. They will also tend to lie and claim that no one can say “Merry Christmas” anymore without fear of some sort of reprisal. But a key part of this is the use of incomplete evidence: they do not mention that “Happy Holidays” has been in use for a long time. This can easily be confirmed by the 1942 film Holiday Inn in which Bing Crosby and Marjorie Reynolds sing the song Happy Holiday. It was later released by Jo Stafford as a Christmas song in 1955. With a bit more effort, you can find that the term was used in 1863 and was used in advertising from at least 1937. This serves to undercut the idea that the use of “Happy Holidays” is evidence of a War on Christmas. The fact that the idea of the War on Christmas still has considerable power on the right shows how effective this fallacy can be. Despite the ease with which the “Happy Holiday” claims can be disproven, we still hear about the War on Christmas every year. As such, when using incomplete evidence for a WOX you will generally not need to worry about all that evidence you are ignoring and your audience will most likely just do the same.

This essay continues my guide on how to start a War on X. In the previous essay, I looked at the advantages and disadvantages of lying and this essay will focus on using hyperbole and the Straw Man fallacy. Hyperbole is a rhetorical device involving exaggeration, typically to make something appear far worse or much better than it really is. While hyperbole is a form of lying, it is an exaggeration rather than a complete fabrication. For example, if a person does not catch any fish and say they “caught a whopper”, then they are just lying. If they caught a small fish and called it a whopper, they are using hyperbole.  While there can be debate about the boundary between hyperbole and other forms of lying, this distinction is not as important as the distinction between the truth and a lie.  Hyperbole can be used for benign purposes, such as in comedy. But it can also be weaponized to help start a war. Hyperbole is often used in creating a straw man fallacy.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when one ignores a claim or argument and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of that claim or argument. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

 

Premise 1: Person A makes claim or argument X.

Premise 2: Person B presents Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Premise 3: Person B attacks Y.

Conclusion:  Therefore, X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a claim or argument does not constitute a criticism of the position itself. A Straw Man can be effective because people often do not know the real claim or argument being attacked. The fallacy is especially effective when the straw person matches the audience’s biases or stereotypes, they will feel that the distorted version is the real version and accept it.

While this fallacy is generally aimed at an audience, it can be self-inflicted: a person can unwittingly make a Straw Man out of a claim or argument. This can be done in error (perhaps due to ignorance) or due to the influence of prejudices and biases.

Straw man attacks often make use of an appeal to an unknown fact. This usually involves claiming to know the “real reason” a person or group believes the straw claim or argument. This “reason” is usually presented as a wicked motivation.

The defense against a Straw Man, self-inflicted or not, is to take care to get a person’s claim or argument right. This involves applying the principle of charity and the principle of plausibility.

Following the principle of charity requires interpreting claims in the best possible light and reconstructing arguments to make them as strong as possible. There are three reasons to follow the principle. The first is that doing so is ethical. The second is that doing so avoids committing the straw man fallacy. The third is that the criticism of the best and strongest versions of a claim or argument also addresses the lesser versions.

The principle of charity must be tempered by the principle of plausibility: claims must be interpreted, and arguments reconstructed in a way that matches what is known about the source and in accord with the context. Obviously, if you are using a Straw Man in your war, you will want to ignore these principles. Instead, you will want to be uncharitable and present the worst possible interpretation of your target. This should be tempered by a distorted version of the principle of plausibility: your distortion should be plausible (or at least appealing) to your target audience.

Hyperbole and the Straw Man fallacy have the following advantages: 

 

  • The truth is what it is, but hyperbole/straw man allows you to “modify” the truth.
  • Engaging an actual claim or argument can be difficult, exaggeration and distortion are easy.
  • Hyperbole/straw man allows you to have a grain of truth.
  • People tend to be more forgiving of hyperbole/strawman compared to utter fabrications.
  • Even if someone does not believe the hype, they can be influenced by it.

 

 

If you limit yourself to the truth or what your target really said, you are stuck with what is. If you are trying to create a WOX, reality will probably be of little or no use to you. But you can tailor your hyperbole or straw man to have maximum impact on your audience. You can, for example, make it fit perfectly with what they fear. If your target makes reasonable claims and has a good argument, engaging these would be hard. Exaggeration and distortion make fighting easier. To use the obvious analogy, it is the difference between fighting the person and punching a dummy dressed up like the person. While useful, hyperbole and straw man do have some disadvantages. Since hyperbole/straw man is not a complete fabrication, you have a grain of truth to work with. This allows you a degree of plausible deniability and there is also the fact that people seem more tolerant of exaggeration and distortion compared to complete fabrications. Interestingly, even if people do not “buy the hype” they can be influenced by it—this is something advertisers make use of. You just need to be careful not to over-hype or distort to the point that even your target audience will not buy it.

As with lies, there are some disadvantages to hyperbole/straw man:

 

  • As with lying, hyperbole/strawman can be debunked.
  • Most religions and moralities condemn lying, even hyperbole.
  • Requires a grain of truth.

 

The general points I made about lying in the previous essay also apply here to hyperbole/straw man. It is worth noting that hyperbole/straw man does give you a degree of plausible deniability. If you are debunked, you can claim you just got things wrong by accident or were being dramatic. Hyperbole/straw man also decreases the chances that your targets will doubt you. If they do make a cursory check of your distortion, they might think that it is confirmed by the grain of truth it is built on. As such, hyperbole/straw man can be better than outright fabrication, at least in some contexts. It does, after all, require at least a fragment of truth.

As an example, consider the change from “Christmas Break” to “Winter Break” or “Holiday Break” by many schools. This was done for the obvious reason that not all students, faculty and staff are Christians who celebrate Christmas. There is also the fact that the break includes holidays other than Christmas, such as New Year’s and that it includes days before and after Christmas. While this change was obviously not an attack on Christmas, it can easily be made into a straw man. A good way to do this is to claim that the “real reason” that the name was changed was because “they” are attacking Christmas and want to cancel it. You can also throw in some claims about “the libs” and “the woke mob” attacking Christianity. If you want to do some racism or sexism, there is also the option of using a dog whistle (the subject of the final essay in this series).  In the next essay we will look at how to use Incomplete Evidence to start the war.

Bill O’Reilly deserves the credit for creating the modern American conception of the War on Christmas. While O’Reilly is no longer a major player, the right has persisted in its odd insistence that Christmas is under attack. That this war has been debunked repeatedly does not matter. While I will discuss some aspects of this war, my interest is with the general methods used to craft and propagate a fictional narrative of a war on X (whatever X might be). I will call this WOX.

If you want to start a WOX, you begin by selecting the X for your new war. You will want to select something your target audience values and it will ideally be something they already fear might be threatened by people they fear and dislike. But you can generate fear on your own if you need to. Given the patent absurdity of claiming there is a war on Christmas, you could start a culture war around almost anything. Fortunately, there are limits to what people will accept; even Trump and Fox News failed at getting their base to believe that there was a war on Thanksgiving. That proved a war too far. But perhaps some pundit or politician will make it stick next time.

While a WOX will, obviously, tend to use “war on” as its defining phrase, this is optional. All you need to do is say “X is under attack” to use the methods I will be discussing. For example, you might prefer to speak of the attacks of the woke mobs on manliness without claiming there is a WWOM (Woke War on Manliness). Given that there are so many Wars on This and Wars on That these days, people might be suffering from battle fatigue when it comes to that phrase. But give it a try and see how your audience reacts. Now let us look at the time-honored tradition of starting a war with lies.

A common way to use lies to argue that there is a War on X is to make up “examples” of acts of war. These “examples” are then used in an Argument by Example to “prove” that the war is occurring. Not surprisingly, an argument by example is an argument in which a claim is supported by providing examples. Although people generally present arguments by example in an informal manner, they have the following logical form:

 

              Premise 1: Example 1 is an example that supports claim P.

              Premise n: Example n is an example that supports claim P.

              Conclusion: Claim P is true.

 

The form used to argue for a WOX would look like this:

 

Premise 1: Example 1 is an example of a War on X.

              Premise n: Example n is an example of a War on X.

              Conclusion: There is a War on X.

 

The strength of the argument depends on four factors First, the more examples, the stronger the argument. Second, the more relevant the examples, the stronger the argument. Third, the examples must be specific and clearly identified.

Fourth, counterexamples must be considered. A counterexample is an example that counts against the claim. One way to look at a counter example is that it is an example that supports the denial of the conclusion being argued for. The more counterexamples and the more relevant they are, the weaker the argument. 

When lying to “prove” a WOX is occurring, you will want to mimic a strong Argument by Example. You will want to have many made up examples that are crafted to appear relevant. While using specific made-up examples might seem risky because vague lies are harder to disprove, this can create the illusion of credibility and, as we will see, you can probably get away with it. You might want to use counter-examples to create the illusion of reasonability but be careful to refute them. Now, on to lying.

Lying has many advantages:

 

  • The truth is what it is, a lie is whatever you want it to be.
  • Determining the truth can require effort, lying is usually easy.

 

If you limit yourself to the truth, you are stuck with what actually  is. If you are trying to create a WOX, the truth will probably be of little or no use. But you can craft whatever lie you need, and you can tailor it to have maximum impact on your audience. You can, for example, make it fit perfectly with what they fear. Sorting out what is true can be difficult, but simply making things up can be easy. Lying is, however, not without disadvantages:

 

  • Lies can be debunked.
  • Most religions and moralities condemn lying.

 

From a practical standpoint, one worry is that your lies can be debunked and exposed. There are fact checkers that expose lies and an army of leftists on YouTube who spend countless hours creating videos to debunk and expose lies. As such, if your lies gain attention, they will be exposed in short order. Fortunately, this is usually not a problem. First, your target audience is unlikely to critically engage your claims. Even if they do have some doubt, there has been a systematic effort over the years to undermine expertise and to sow distrust of the mainstream media, academics, and others who are likely to expose your lies. As such, they are unlikely to trust these sources. Conveniently enough, if experts and the media put pressure on you, your audience is likely to double down. Hence, far from harming your WOX, these attacks can strengthen the war.

Second, some of your audience will be onboard with your lies. This might be because they want to get in on the WOX for their own reasons or because they believe they hear a dog whistle (more on this in a future essay). Or they might believe that your lies serve a higher purpose or greater truth, which takes us to the matter of religious and moral condemnation.

As noted above, most religions and moralities condemn lies. Christianity, for example, often casts the devil as the Prince of Lies and has a commandment against bearing false witness. Everyday ethics and moral theories alike usually present lying as wrong or at least as problematic. For example, Kant takes lying to always be wrong. As such, you might have concerns about lying. Fortunately, there are ways around this. One way is simply rejecting these aspects of religion and morality. Another way is to avail yourself of established loopholes and workarounds. With some exceptions, religions and moral theories do allow for justified lying. One could appeal to the popular view that the end justifies the means, or you could assuage any vestiges of a conscience by a sophisticated utilitarian analysis of your lies and the good they will do (you). The truth might set you free but lies are easy. Good luck with your WOX.

 

Following our good dead friend Aristotle, democracy is rule of the people (demos). Once a democratic form of government is chosen, then there is the matter of sorting out which people will do the ruling and how they will be selected. In the United States (which is technically a republic) a practical issue of democracy is determining who gets to vote. Those familiar with United States history know that the categories of people who can vote has grown and shrunk over time.

When the United States was founded, voting was limited to white male landowners 21 or older.  In 1868 the 14th Amendment granted full citizenship and voting rights to all men born or naturalized in the United States.  In 1870 the 15th Amendment eliminated some of the racial barriers to voting, but many states used various tactics to suppress voters. In 1920 the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote and in 1924 the right was extended to native Americans. In 1971 the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. Republicans have engaged in nationwide effort to make it more difficult to vote and “justify” this by appealing to their big lie of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. But there is an interesting philosophical issue here, which is the matter of deciding who should have the right to vote.

Intuitively, there should be limits on who can vote in specific elections. To illustrate, it would be odd to claim that citizens of Maine should be able to vote to determine the governor of Florida or that United States citizens should vote for the mayor of Moscow. There is also the intuitively appealing exclusion of some people based on age. For example, few would argue that 1 year old infants should have the right to vote. But mere intuitions are not enough, what is needed is a principle or set of principles to determine who should be able to vote.

One approach to voting is to limit it based on the principle of status. That is, voting should be restricted to a certain set of people to confer status on them and deny it to others. When non-whites and women were excluded from voting, one reason was a demonstration of the hierarchy in the United States: it was one more sign showing who mattered and who mattered much less. While this provides a practical principle for deciding who can vote, it seems difficult to provide a moral justification for this. I certainly will not defend it and will leave it to the sexists to defend exclusion based on sex and the racists to argue for exclusion based on race. And so on for other such hierarchy-based exclusions.

A similar approach to voting that tends to make the same divisions uses the principle of maintaining the status quo. Going back to 1776, one reason to allow only white men who own land to vote is that they will tend to vote in ways that favor white men who own land. If other people are permitted to vote, they might vote in their own interest, which need not be advantageous to maintaining the status quo. This is one reason why Republicans support laws that disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters: these voters tend to vote for Democrats and excluding them will help maintain the status quo or even, as they would see it, improve it. However, the principle of excluding people to maintain the status quo or advantage the included at the expense of the excluded is morally difficult to justify. I will not defend it, leaving this task to the Republicans and their supporters.

On the face of it, an appealing moral principle for determining who can vote is that those affected by the results of the voting should have the right to vote in that election. For example, as a citizen of Florida and a state employee I am affected by the election of the governor of Florida. As such, this would warrant my participation in the election. However, this principle can break down very quickly.

The principle of affect seems far too broad in that it, intuitively, would allow people to vote who probably should not have that right. To use a somewhat silly example, infants are affected by elections, but it would be absurd for them to have the right to vote. To use a somewhat less silly example, adults around the world are affected by the United States presidential election, but it would seem absurd for them all to vote in that election. Naturally, this could be disputed, and one could defend this principle of affect. Despite its obvious flaw, the principle does point us in the right direction; we just need something that would narrow the scope sufficiently. One option to keep the principle of affect is to modify it and add an appropriate qualifier or three.

Obviously enough, one could go with various practical solutions that we already use. For example, voters could be included or excluded by their geographic location within the relevant political boundaries. Of course, this leads to questions about how these boundaries should be drawn. This is relevant to such matters as gerrymandering and other concerns about manipulating the inclusion and exclusion of voters in elections.  While perhaps difficult to implement, the idea of boundaries set by how a person is affected rather than by geography does have considerable moral appeal—after all, it seems intuitively plausible that a person should have a degree of choice in matters that meaningfully affect them. Sorting out all this goes far beyond the scope of a simple essay, but this seems like a good starting point for additional consideration about voting.

Cancer killed my dad this past May. When I heard Charlie Kirk had been killed, I understood what those who loved him must be feeling: a jagged emptiness that fills with pain and sadness. My dad and I spoke every week but now each Sunday I wait for a call that will never come. Charlie’s family is now waiting for a call that will never come and a father who will never return. But I have fifty-nine years of memories of my father.  Charlie’s kids were robbed of these memories to be; they will have but vague memory of him when they grow up. This is one of the many reasons I am saddened by any death; each of us is loved and death robs those who love us. To rejoice in death is to curse love, whether it is the death of Charlie Kirk or the slaying of people in a boat off the coast of Venezuela. I think people should remain silent rather than rejoice in death but will say more about this below.

After Kirk’s death, some rejoiced on the internet. Others condemned the murder but asserted Kirk was a terrible person. In response, the Trump administration and some state governments launched retaliation and intimidation campaigns. Vice President Vance (and fellow Buckeye philosopher) urged people to report Kirk’s critics to their employers to get them fired. Like most on the right, Vance once professed to be a champion of free speech and once said “We may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square.”  Vance and others on the right also spent years condemning what they called “cancel culture.” Their recent actions help to further confirm that they are not champions of free speech and that they are enthusiastic about creating “cancel culture” when they are doing the cancelling.  

The latest efforts to suppress and punish expression are being made in Kirk’s name. This is ironic because Kirk has been lauded as a champion of free expression, with his supporters pointing out how he went to campuses to debate college students who disagreed with him. That this earned the hatred of Nick Fuentes and led to the Groyper War was certainly a point in his favor. His critics point out that he created a professor watchlist that results in death threats, harassment and efforts to get professors fired. Some might also contend that his motivation to debate college students was to get clips to use as propaganda and to recruit for his cause. To be fair and balanced, while many on the right clearly reject the right of free expression, there seem to be those who are true believers.

Attorney General Pam Bondi (who is from my adopted state of Florida) recently said the Justice Department “will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” This led to pushback from a few people on the right, including Tucker Carlson. These critics embrace the idea of Kirk as a free-speech champion, asserting that he would have objected vehemently to Bondi. Those more cynical than I might claim that these right-wing critics of Bondi are worried that she might go after them. After all, the right wing is divided and there were credible reasons to believe that Kirk’s killer might have been to the right of Kirk, such as being a Groyper. That said, it is unlikely that Bondi really meant what she said. Otherwise, as some would point out, she would have to go after her boss. I agree with Carlson’s criticism of Bondi but what is my theory of free expression given my claim that people should not rejoice in deaths?

While I support free expression, I have the uncontroversial belief that there are some normative limits that should be followed. The weakest limit is that of etiquette. This is composed of the norms of politeness, such as what fork to use or how to address one’s professor. While this is a matter of convention (we make these up), it also forms some of the oil that greases the social wheels and plays an important role in keeping them running smoothly. They are also the way we show respect for one another. Following the norms of etiquette serve these practical purposes and we should be cautious of breaking them and consider the harm that might be done by doing so.

While the norms of etiquette are mere conventions that vary between people, most do accept that rejoicing in the death of another is impolite. As such, one should think before breaking that norm (if one accepts it). That said, etiquette (civility) can be weaponized to silence people by equating criticism with being uncivil. And people can make themselves unworthy of respect by being terrible people. But merely being rude is a minor offense and the consequences should be proportional to that offense. One can even argue that there should be no consequences at all.

I strive to be unfailingly polite even in the face of rudeness and provocation. One reason is a matter of principle in that I think that even terrible people deserve some basic respect simply for being people.  And everyone has bad days, so I give people the benefit of the doubt if they are rude to me. Another reason is that I learned that civility can be justly weaponized: remaining unfailingly polite unsettles some people when they are being rude or hateful, occasionally pushing them to reconsider their words or actions.

A much stronger realm of norms is that of ethics, although there are many thinkers who argue for moral nihilism, subjectivism, or relativism. As a practical matter, I usually follow J.S. Mill’s principle of harm when it comes to the ethics of expression and ask whether the expression would cause meaningful harm. The usual example of immoral expression is, of course, yelling “fire” in a theater when there is no fire and causing a panic. But there are obviously degrees of harm, and specific cases can be debated. For example, saying mean things about a person could cause them discomfort, but this would create far less harm then doxxing them on social media and calling for them to be fired.

Because I accept objective morality, my expression is governed by principles: I consider what harm I might cause to others and restrict my expression accordingly. This is, obviously, how I regulate all my actions. Or try to. Being a philosopher, I recognize that there are many other views of ethics that differ from my own and I am wary of imposing my ethics on others. That said, the principle of harm seems to be a good general guide about what a person should say. In the case of death, rejoicing in the death of another seems to be morally wrong because of the harm it can do to others and, perhaps, one’s own character. As such, I do not rejoice in the death of others even when I think they were wicked or even deserved their fate. Because of this, I think people (morally) should not express joy in the death of others. But they should be allowed to do so, because the harm caused does not rise to the level that requires significant consequences. The times being what they are, I must make it clear that I condemn the murder of Kirk and would prefer a better world without as much murder. 

It could be argued that such an expression shows bad character and would, morally, justify firing a person. But this would require adequate proof of bad character that would be relevant to their occupation. This would involve extensive evidence of egregious and consistent wickedness relevant to their profession. Social media is a trap for people: it creates in us the feeling that we must respond instantly in the hopes of getting attention and enables us to do so in a public manner. As such, we often get to see the worst thing a person might ever say but would not say if they reflected on it. Because of this, firing someone because of a single post would almost never be justified. We have all thought awful things that are not who we really are, and we should forgive each other for those moments, even if we say them out loud. Naturally, if there is adequate evidence of persistent and egregious wickedness relevant to a person’s job, then firing them could be morally justified. For example, if a leader persistently expressed their lack of concern about war crimes, then they should be fired.  But this principle should (morally) be applied consistently. But morality is distinct from law.

The third, and usually the most consequential, normative area is the law. While the law is, like etiquette, just made up, it has serious consequences ranging from fines to death. The United States government is, of course, supposed to be limited by the 1st Amendment. While the text of the amendment is clear, it does allow for debate about what is and is not protected and it obviously depends on the whims of those in power.  But from a moral standpoint, this right should be respected, and the state should only use its coercive power in accord with the amendment. As such, people should not be subject to the coercive power 0f the state merely for expressing views the rulers dislike, even if they express approval of Kirk’s murder.

It is also worth pointing out that the amendment is a right against the state alone. It does not apply to private entities like employers. As such, an employer could fire someone at any time in response to (or retaliation against) something they said on social media. Even employers who have professed a love of free speech can and will fire people. People often mistakenly believe that they have a general legal right to free expression but some learn that our employers have more power over us than the state in terms of what we are allowed to express. So, a business can legally fire someone for posting they were glad Kirk was murdered. They could also fire someone for expressing their sadness at Kirk’s death, although that would obviously strike most people as an odd thing to do. As I argued back when “the left” was cancelling people and getting them fired, employers should (morally) only fire people if their offense merits doing so. This is based on the principle that the punishment for an offense should be proportional to the offense. For most people being fired would be devastating. Which is, one might suspect, why many free speech warriors on the right are enthusiastically embracing cancel culture to intimidate and harm those whose views they disagree with. They are warriors against free speech, not for it. 

When the left proposes to provide new and expanded benefits to non-rich Americans, the right replies with two stock arguments. The first is the deficit argument, which I addressed in my previous essay. The second is the Dependency argument.

The gist of the Dependency argument is that if people get assistance or benefits of a certain sort from the state, such as unemployment benefits or childcare, then they risk becoming dependent upon the state. Since this dependence is claimed to have negative consequences, such assistance and benefits should be limited or not provided. This can be seen as a utilitarian argument.

There are numerous variations of this argument which tend to focus on specific alleged harm. For example, it might be contended that if unemployment benefits are too generous then people will not want to work. As a specific illustration, in  April, 2020 Senator Lindsey Graham argued that public financial relief for the coronavirus would incentivize workers to leave their jobs. Other alleged harms include damage to the moral character of the recipients of such benefits and, on a larger scale, the creation of  a culture of dependency and a culture of entitlement. While this argument is passionately advanced by many on the right, there are two main issues that need to be addressed. The first is whether the argument is being made in good faith. The second is whether the argument is a good one from a logical standpoint.

Bad faith argumentation can occur in a variety of ways. One way is for a person to knowingly use fallacies or rhetoric as substitutes for good reasoning. Interestingly, a person can use fallacies and rhetoric in good faith when they do so unintentionally. In such cases, they are using bad logic in good faith. Another way is for a person to use premises they believe are untrue. Naturally, a person can make untrue claims in good faith; they do not realize their claims are untrue. Another way a person can argue in bad faith is to advance arguments that they do not believe in. This usually involves making arguments based on principles or reasons that they do not actually accept, while they pretend that they do.

Because of the problem of other minds, sorting out when people are engaged in bad faith argumentation can be challenging. After all, even if you can show that a person has used a fallacy or made a false claim, this does not itself prove they were arguing in bad faith: bad faith involves intent. Fortunately, there are ways to make a decent case that someone is engaged in bad faith and one of these is to provide evidence of inconsistency. This is, unfortunately, not always decisive: people can be sincerely inconsistent because they do not understand the implications of their claims and for other reasons that do not involve an intent at deceit. But in the case of the right, their dependency argument seems to generally be a bad faith argument.

If we take the Dependency arguments seriously, then they would also tell against inheritance, something beloved by the right since it helps entrench wealth and enhance inequality. In fact, philosophers have long made this argument.

Mary Wollstonecraft contends that hereditary wealth is morally wrong because it produces idleness and impedes people from developing their virtues. Inheritance is unearned. So, if receiving unearned resources creates dependency, then inheritance would create dependency. It could be countered that people can earn an inheritance, that it might be granted because of their hard work or some other relevant factor. While such cases would be worth considering, earning it hard work is not the usual way one qualifies for an inheritance. However, an earned inheritance would certainly not be subject to this argument. This exactly mirrors the conservative Dependency arguments, and they should, if they are consistent, agree with Wollstonecraft. But they clearly do not.

As one would expect, conservatives on the right generally favor protecting inheritance and oppose estate taxes. During the first Trump administration, the exemption to the estate tax increased to $5.49 million and in 2017 it increased again to $11.18 million. The Big Beautiful Bill also aimed at reducing taxes on the estates of the extremely wealthy.  This is inconsistent with their Dependency argument. If they truly fear that people getting small benefits from the state will create dependency and destroy incentives, then they should be terrified by such massive inheritances: these would, as Wollstonecraft argued, seem to be vastly more harmful. If one does not like the inheritance argument, then there is also the welfare for the wealthy argument.

While there are some exceptions, the right typically favors subsidies and benefits for corporations, businesses, and the wealthy. As such, it is hardly surprising that the bulk of social welfare spending benefits them rather than the poor. With almost no exceptions, one does not hear the people railing about the alleged dependency of the poor argue against these benefits and assistance. They are only concerned when the beneficiaries are the poor rather than the rich.

One can, of course, argue that there are relevant differences between benefits and assistance for the rich and those for those who are not rich. Often, these arguments also tend to be made in bad faith. A common tactic is to use the Perfect Analogy fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one takes the standards for assessing an argument by analogy to the extreme and imposes unreasonable requirements for similarity. This is the opposite of the Poor or False Analogy fallacy; this occurs when the standards are applied too laxly by the person making the argument.

 As a tactic, when using the Perfect Analogy Fallacy, one simply refuses to accept that the two things are similar, no matter what evidence or reasons are presented. As always, it can be challenging to prove that someone is doing this in bad faith, but one can sometimes push the person into trying to defend something that they clearly do not believe, and their bad faith becomes evident. That said, one must always be careful not to assume that a person who rejects an analogy must be arguing in bad faith or that they must be wrong—to refuse to consider their arguments would be an act of bad faith.

In closing, those who oppose the state helping the non-rich and use the Dependency argument generally seem to be arguing in bad faith. Naturally, if they have also argued against inheritance and benefits for the wealthy using the Dependency argument, then they can be  arguing in good faith. As far as whether benefits create dependency or destroy incentives to work, that is another matter. But the answer seems to be “no”, as long as one looks at the statistical data rather than simply speaking from ideology or “common sense.”

While this will not surprise anyone familiar with the state of police accountability in the United States, a  study reports that more than half of killings by police have been mislabeled over the past 40 years. As also would be expected by anyone familiar with American policing, black men are killed and their deaths mislabeled at disproportionally high rates. One objection to the claims made in the study is to point out the federal government lacks a comprehensive system of tracking police caused deaths and use of force. As such, no one can claim to know the actual numbers.

On the one hand, that is a reasonable criticism. While journalists and academics have been tracking police deaths and use of force, this is a piecemeal effort that depends on the ability of individual journalists and researchers to gather and confirm information. While the National-Use-of-Force Data Collection launched in 2019, most police departments decline to provide data.  As such, we do not know the exact number of police caused deaths nor the  exact percentage that have been mislabeled. We cannot also claim to know the exact number of police uses of force and what percentage of these were not justified.

 That said, the authors of the study are using the best available data from the National Vital Statistics System, Fatal Encounters, Mapping Police Violence, and the Guardian’s The Counted. This data, while incomplete, does provide a foundation for a reasonable inductive generalization. Naturally, we need to keep in mind the usual concerns about sample size and the possibility of a biased sample. But one cannot simply reject the claims by asserting the sample must be too small or biased; one would need to support these claims.

On the other hand, this criticism (perhaps ironically) points to a huge problem: we do not have accurate and complete data on police killings and use of force. While one could claim that the missing data could show that there is no problem, one would think that if this were true, then the police would support making that data available. After all, it would help address criticism of the police and serve to improve their reputation.

Requiring the police to provide this data would seem to be something that the left and right can agree on. The left, obviously, want that data. The right is constantly speaking of the dangers of government overreach, warning against tyrannical abuses of power, and demanding accountability. Since they were outraged by the cruel tyranny of the mask and vaccines, then their rage should be incandescent about the lack of police accountability. After all, a mask is at worst a slight discomfort while the police seem to be using the power of the state to get away with murder. I am, of course, not serious about this. I know that the right, in general, is onboard with the police using violence—if they are using it against people the right does not like. They do, of course, have a very different view when the police oppose them. But this does provide a way of using the bad faith rhetoric of the right against them. While this is not effective, it is at least a bit amusing. What is not funny is how police caused deaths are so often mislabeled.

While mislabeling can occur from error, an ongoing problem is that coroners and medical examiners can be too closely linked to law enforcement and in some cases a coroner can be a law enforcement official, such as a sheriff. There is a reasonable concern that a forensic examination conducted by someone associated with law enforcement or who is otherwise biased will not be accurate. The George Floyd case provides an example of how this can occur. As I argued in an earlier essay, this link needs to be broken to ensure that deaths caused by police are properly labeled. Other improvements would also need to be made, since there is a serious problem and it involves, of course, racism.

Black Americans are about 3.5 times more likely than whites to be killed by the police. Latinos and Native Americans are also more likely than whites to be killed. Looked at as a public health hazard, a person is more likely to be killed by the police than be killed while riding a bike—and bicycling is dangerous in the United States. Given the disproportionate killing of black Americans, it is not surprising that the study showed that 60% of their deaths were misclassified.  States vary considerably in the accuracy of their reporting. Based on the study, Maryland does the best with only 16% of killings misclassified. Oklahoma does the worst, with 83%.

The available data shows that the police are engaging in disproportionate killing and that most of their killings are being misclassified. While some of the misclassification might be due to errors, this would only explain some cases. If it is claimed that most of the misclassifications are due to errors, this would be to claim that the system is plagued with gross incompetence and thus would still need a radical overhaul to correct this problem. One could, of course, also claim that researchers and journalists are lying about the misclassification. Supporting this claim would require competing data and evidence. This, as noted above, would be quite a challenge: the police generally do not provide this data. As such, a person claiming that the study is in error would need their own credible source of information. Obviously, simply launching ad hominem attacks on journalists and researchers would not refute their claims.  

In closing, those who claim that the police are not engaged in disproportionate and unnecessary killing and that deaths are not being misclassified should support mandatory reporting by the police and overhauling who does the classification and how it is done. After all, if they are right, then accurate data would prove them right. Those that simply deny there is a problem while opposing efforts to gather accurate information might be engaged in wishful thinking or they might be aware of the problem but think that it is not a problem at all, that is, they are fine with what is happening and want it to keep happening.

For years, the right passed anti-choice laws in the hope they would end up in the Supreme Court and lead to the overturning of Roe v Wade. They finally succeeded and anti-abortion groups claimed a major victory over the will of the people.  

While purporting to be motivated by pro-life (or at least anti-death) principles, these laws and bills are fundamentally misogynistic. They have three fundamental functions. The first is to appease a key portion of the base.

Second, couched in pro-life language, these laws provide excellent dog whistles for misogynists. The male misogynists generally understand that the message being sent to them is: “Your baby in her body. Her body in your kitchen. Making you a sandwich to put in your body.” More generally, the laws say to the misogynists in the base “we are misogynists like you, and we will put women in their proper place.”  Naturally, to make these claims is to seem crazy in the eyes of the “normies.”

Third, the laws  codify misogyny by harming women. To be fair, I can add a fourth reason that brings in the Democrats: the abortion debate was something of a battlefield of deceit in which the Republicans falsely claim to be pro-life (or at least anti-death) and the mainstream Democrats agreed to fight the battle on this assumption. The Democrats rhetoric is that they are pro-choice and the mainstream never seems inclined to get into a substantial and complex fight over the core ethical and political issues. That is, of course, broadly true across   mainstream politics: politicians mouthing their fighting words while keeping the status quo stable and themselves in power. But it could be objected that I am mischaracterizing things.

One objection is that while some misogynists might support these laws, proponents of anti-abortion laws, such as Alabama governor Kay Ivey, claim their  motivation is to protect life. As the governor said, “to the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.” But this is a bad faith claim.

Given the professed view that Alabamans regard life as a precious, sacred gift, one should be shocked to learn that Alabama is terrible in terms of maternal and infant health. Alabama is tied for 4th worst in the United States, with 7.4 deaths per 1,000 live births. While it might be argued that this is due to factors beyond their control, there is a consistent correlation between strong anti-abortion laws and poor maternal and infant health. While correlation is not causation, the reason for this correlation is clear: the state governments that enact the strictest anti-abortion laws also show, via public policies, the least concern for maternal and infant health. Texas, as should surprise no one, also has a high maternal mortality rate. While not nearly as bad as Texas and Alabama, Florida also has a high maternal (and infant) mortality rate. 

This is inconsistent with the professed principle that life is a precious, sacred gift. It is also inconsistent with the professed motivation for anti-abortion laws: to protect the life of children. It is, however, consistent with the hypothesis that anti-abortion laws are largely motivated by misogynistic principles. After all, if legislators pass anti-abortion laws because of hostility towards women’s reproductive freedom and wellbeing, then one would also expect them to neglect maternal and infant health in their other policies. On the face of it, this is the better explanation.

Another objection is that the laws are aimed at reducing the number of abortions and this is not misogynistic. Again, it just so happens that it impacts women. The easy and obvious reply is that the most effective way to reduce abortions is to reduce the need for them. Improved sex education and easy and free access to birth control reduces unwanted pregnancies. One might assert that anti-abortion folks also tend to oppose sex ed and birth control; but these are also usually misogynistic positions as well. Defending misogyny with more misogyny is hardly a good defense against an accusation of misogyny.

For those who oppose sex-ed and birth control without being misogynists, one can argue for using social programs to provide women and girls with adequate resources to complete a pregnancy and raise the child. But, as is well known, the anti-abortion folks tend to be savage opponents of programs that help mothers and children. If they were so devoted to life that they think the state should use its coercive power to take control over  women, then they should be on board with providing basic state support to enable more women to choose to complete their pregnancy. But the easy and obvious explanation is that the pro-life claims are bad faith assertions; they are not pro-life but are misogynists.

A final objection is to point to women who support anti-abortion laws. Surely, one might say, women would not support misogynist laws. And, of course, men involved with the laws can point out that they have a mother and some of their best friends are women. So how can they be misogynists?

In some cases, women support such laws from ignorance. That is, they accept the bad faith reasons and think that they are supporting the protection of life, not realizing the misogynist consequences of the laws. Interestingly, women on the right are sometimes shocked that the right is misogynistic. They apparently fail to grasp that racism and sexism are the peanut butter and chocolate of the right. In other cases, they might be aware that the laws are advanced in bad faith but agree with the stated goal of restricting abortion. So, they go along with the misogyny because it gets them something they want.

 A third possibility is that a woman is herself a misogynist—while this might sound odd, it can happen. Finally, a woman might be an opportunist rather than ignorant or a misogynist—she has calculated that she will gain more as an individual by backing misogyny than she will lose as a woman. So, for example, a female judge or politician might recognize that the right is fundamentally misogynistic but decide that she gains a personal advantage by joining them. Just as the folks on the right desire a few minorities to provide them with a “black friend” as a shield against accusations of racism, they also want a few women to provide them with a shield against accusations of sexism.

Somewhat ironically, the powerful women on the right represent something radical that undermines the right: they hold these positions of power because of the past battles fought by the left.  Also, capable women in power give lie to the misogyny of the right (and left).  Not so long ago, the right (and left) was openly misogynistic; but this has changed and there is a strong reaction to this shift. It is, of course, ironic that the women who occupy their positions of power due to the fight against misogyny are fighting so hard to roll back the clock for women in general. Perhaps they think that they will retire before the clock is rolled back. Perhaps they are unaware of the consequences of what they are fighting for. Or perhaps they sincerely believe that they should not have been allowed to be where they chose to be and that future women should not be allowed this choice. Or perhaps they know that they will remain the exception to the oppression they wish to impose on other women.

It might be wondered why anyone would bother making the arguments I have made. After all, the right and their supporters are either already aware of the misogynistic purpose of the laws or will not believe me. But there seems to be some value in attempting to reveal that the right’s arguments are in bad faith. There is a slight chance that some people might change their minds about supporting such bad faith laws.

It also seems desirable to try to reveal the bad faith on the right. For example, when they engage in their bad faith arguments and rhetoric about protecting life, that would be the ideal time to call them out on their lack of support (and opposition) to laws that do protect children. These include regulating pollutants that kill children, providing stronger social support for children, ensuring clean water and adequate food for children, providing quality education for children, ensuring quality health care for children, and so on for so many things the “pro-life” right fights. Whenever a right-wing politician proposes a “pro-life” bill, the left should immediately try to add real pro-life components, such as funding for maternal care and the health of children. When a “pro-life” governor is professing their love of life, they should be asked about the infant and maternal mortality rates in their state. And so on.

 

In fiction, race/gender swapping occurs when an established character’s race or gender is changed. For example, the original Nick Fury character in Marvel is a white man but was changed to a black man in the Ultimates and in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As another example, the original Dr. Smith in the TV show Lost in Space is a man; the Netflix reboot made the character a woman. As would be expected, some people are enraged when a swap occurs. Some are open about their racist or sexist reasons for their anger and are clear that they do not want females and non-white people in certain roles. Some criticize a swap by asking why there was a swap instead of either creating a new character or focusing on a less well-known existing character. For example, a critic of the He-Man reboot might be angry that King Grayskull was changed from white to black and raise the critical question “what about Clamp Champ?”

Such questions can be asked in bad faith; the person asking them makes it clear that they are angry that minorities and women are allowed to take traditional white male roles. As such, it is not that they want new women or minority characters or more focus on existing characters, the question is a cover for their racism and sexism. These questions serve well in this role as they are not overtly racist or sexist. In fact, when raised in good faith, these are reasonable aesthetic questions. Unfortunately, these questions are now well-established as dog-whistles that allow people to hide their racism and sexism from “normies” while sending a clear signal to those in the know. That some people use these questions without racist or sexist intent helps maintain their innocuous appearance. Someone using them as racist or sexist tools can claim, in bad faith, that they are just asking reasonable questions. And then go on to rage against how “the woke” are ruining everything by compelling race/gender swaps and forcing diversity. Those who call them out on this can seem crazy to those who do not understand the context. But let us ask these questions in good faith.

The most obvious practical reason why race/gender swapping is used instead of creating a new character or focusing on an established character is money. Creating and branding a new character (and building up a fan base) takes time and resources. And it is a gamble, since there is also no guarantee of success. So, keeping the Nick Fury character while making him black made more practical sense than creating a new character to serve as the head of SHIELD. While less well-known characters can become a great success (for example, the Guardians of the Galaxy), this is risky as there  are often reasons why such characters are less well known. But this only explains why a new character was not created or why focus was not shifted, it does not explain why the race/gender swap occurred. Fortunately, this is easy to explain and even justify.

While some critics claim that the liberals, feminists and the woke are forcing companies to gender/race swap, these companies seem to be doing this for the same reason they do almost anything: money. Their marketing and research folks are aware that demographics and perceptions change. So, whereas fiction dominated by white male characters was the moneymaker in the past, more diverse characters appeal to some audiences now. If these changes were purely political and hated by most people, these swaps would be consistent and constant failures. This is not to make the absurd claim that they all succeed, just that they do not seem unusually prone to financial failure. Those who say “go woke, go broke” tend to cherry pick their example of failures and ignore the abundance of unsuccessful media that is “traditional” rather than “woke.”

No nefarious conspiracies are needed to explain swaps; this is just businesses trying to maximize profits by minimizing cost and exploiting established brands. Demographics and values change and this explains both the swaps and the rage at the swaps. 

It is also worth noting that despite the hyperbole about Hollywood not having new ideas, new characters do get created often. Netflix, for example, floods its service with new shows with new characters which often include females and non-white people. And attempts are made to focus on characters that have been overlooked. These efforts often make the people who ask, “why not create a new character?” angry as it exposes that they ask this question in bad faith. Aside from money, are there good reasons to race/gender swap rather than  create a new character or focus on an existing character?

One excellent aesthetic reason is that doing so can make for an interesting plot that explicitly explores the influence of race and gender on the character and story. For example, one episode of Marvel’s What If..? Explores what would have happened if Peggy Carter had become a super soldier rather than Steve Rogers. This swap has a meaningful impact on the story in part because of the assumed gender roles of that time (and now). I think this is one of the best aesthetic justifications for such swaps.  Obviously, some people get very angry about such explorations.

Another good aesthetic reason, especially in a reboot, is to use the gender/race swap to create new story and character dynamics. While the focus is not on exploring race/gender issues, these do become new elements for an old character in telling a new story. This also tends to make some people very mad.

There are also various moral reasons to make such changes. One reason is to provide people with characters they can more easily identify with. While critics will claim that people should be able to identify with any hero, ironically this would favor allowing such swaps. After all, if people can identify with any hero, then it should not matter if they were race/gender swapped. Another moral reason is to help foster parasocial relationships using the power of established characters. One reason racists and sexists dislike diversity in fiction is that people can form parasocial relationships and this can make them more tolerant which is something racists and sexists oppose. There are, of course, bad reasons to race/gender swap.

Some might consider the “make money” reason to be a bad one, which is not unreasonable from an aesthetic or moral standpoint. If the swap is purely to make money and it has no aesthetic or moral justification, then criticism would seem warranted. But a swap could make money and be independently warranted on ethical or aesthetic grounds. Also, one would need to be consistent in such criticisms. To use an analogy, the Toyota Corolla of today is radically different from when I was a kid; yet the brand name is kept because doing so is advantageous and helps make money. But people do not get very angry about that.

As noted above, some claim that the swaps are compelled by political actors such as the liberals, SJWs,  the woke, and feminists. If a swap were just the result of political compulsion and it lacked all ethical and aesthetic merit, then that swap should be criticized. But a swap could be compelled but also independently warranted on ethical or aesthetic grounds. It is also worth mentioning again that companies are motivated by profit; their political stances are shaped by the bottom line. And even if they were driven by politics or ideology, one would still need to show that their politics and ideology are bad. They usually are, but for different reasons.

While most swaps are motivated by hope of profits, there are good reasons to race/gender swap a character rather than creating a new one. But creating new characters or focusing on less well-known characters are also good options—it all depends on what one is trying to do. Ideally, the swap would be to tell a better story; but there is nothing inherently wrong with swapping for any number of other reasons.