I don't know man, from the sidelines it looks like you are banding over backwards to call a racist comment something other than "racist".
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
26 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
39354 readers
1199 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
While I think some people have felt that there are existing terms that fit more broadly, my vote for a brand new term to address it would be "pulling for false victims". I added the word "false", because in some contexts pulling for more victims using full, detailed context is a perfectly legitimate strategy to fight a larger power. (For instance, one woman who's been harassed by an employer could talk to other women in the workplace about it, and find that there's a large group of women all suffering that harassment. If it's not using deceptive interpretations, it can achieve justice for an affected group)
It was also interesting to see in comments how much of the discourse turned to race. It's possible I misplanned the example by using "blue hair", since that's an element of birth identity much like being black or a woman. As a result, a lot of the conversation went deliberately to just how bad "Bob" is, with the direct allegory being something like "That damned black kid". But, it's also interesting how much people center on that, since they view social issues as naturally receiving less attention than obvious ills like robbing an orphanage, and want to champion that highlighting. Part of what I was trying to show, but didn't do a good job of, is how many aspects can be a part of someone's identity beyond their circumstances of birth. As a gamer, "gamer" is an easy one, but political affiliation, hobbies, or even just owners of a certain kind of product could be used for this deceptive political movement. These descriptors are more likely to be brought up in mention, or even specific targeting; which can provide bad actors more ways to use the fallacy.
I see a lot of potential avenues by which malicious actors can "pull for false victims", which is why the subject intrigued me. Picture, for instance, a Democratic senator who sees Republicans vote against sane gun legislation, and claim "Republicans just want to see kids die in schools!" in reference to those senators. Even if this laments NRA influence, it's unfortunately common in American politics to inherit political affiliation to one's identity, so even if a Republican voter is a gun owner in favor of reasonable gun regulation, the Republican senator may present that quote as a warning sign, causing the voter to believe that Democrats directly hate him, not his representatives, and/or are being ignorant of that Republican's own letters of support for gun regulation.
The kicker is comments here in which the very trick plays out in full, without a whole lot of intentional effort. People used to seeing social injustice may hear a very, very short quote and believe they understand the full context of it, "pulling for false victims" themselves. Admittedly, during made-up internet examples, there's no way to research further, but there are also real-world cases where the subject is so obscure, the only released information is that of a deceitful actor, with no "lengthy explanation" available to correct for context. The only full safeguard would be to come away from partial information with questions and no concrete opinions; though it'd also make sense to bear strong suspicion towards a journalist or user that would release a photo or quote with no idea where it came from or why.
There may be something relevant in wikipedia's list of propaganda techniques but I think the mostly it's just what is technically called "lying."
"Taking a statement out of context."
The context was the robbery that occurred, and blue-hair as an identifier for the robber.
Now if in this hypothetical, blue-hair was a slur, Bob ~~Mike~~ is not doing himself any favors.
Yes, I was doing more explaining in other comments but this seems like a good summary.
But I'd also add, the "Mike" could work off of more than just individual low-context statements to make a particular group feel attacked. They could, for instance, invent context to other, wordless actions.
You lost me there
I think the terms most applicable to the situation you described are "bigotry" and "democracy"
In your initial description, blue-haired Mike's misdeeds are considered by the town to be of less importance than Bob's bias against blue-haired people. No deception occurs -- the group is merely spending their time addressing an ongoing general ill rather than a completed special ill.
This is generally just fine. Groups tend to rightly recognize that ongoing issues are of greater priority than completed misdeeds, and perpetuated bias is essentially always an ongoing issue.
There isnt a specific word for a wrongdoer attempting to distract from their misdeeds by exaggerating someone's bias. It's either an easily addressed distraction (bob says "I'm sorry I contributed to anti-blue-hair bias when reporting Mike's misdeed" and the town moves on to the orphan robbery) or it's a persistent problem ("why are you wasting time on the hurt feelings of those worthless blue-haired freaks; somebody STOLE a COOKIE from an ORPHANAGE!")
The reason I brought this topic up was because in some cases, it isn't easily addressed.
One example that I think is often misunderstood is an interview with the developer of Battlefield V, being asked about the inclusion of female characters. The interview response generally targeted overt sexism and women-hatred that came online as a result. The response was long, but ended with the statement: "You have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game."
Yet, I saw this quote being forcefully pushed into a lot of other contexts, as though this was EA's response to everything from general historical accuracy criticisms, gameplay issues, pricing problems, etc. There was a small crowd of overt misogynists that could pull a lot of people to "their side", and weaponize the conversation, by making the general playerbase of the game feel like they were "being attacked". I saw the quote used by many people that I knew generally didn't care about avatar genders. Many afterwards never even came to realize there was a wave of Gamergate-style "Your body my choice" sexism, or desire by female gamers to be represented, in response to Battlefield's off-history inclusion efforts (hence the "no one even heard of the robbery" part of the example)
So my point is these distractions generally are not as easily addressed as you believe. In many real-world allegories to the sample, the metaphorical culprit behind the orphanage robbery is never actually put in jail since the proper response would require societal reaction, but the actual reaction has built up two "sides" that are of equal size.
EA including women in a video game, saying "accept it or don't buy the game", and anyone continuing on after that is absolutely perpetuating a societal ill.
Anyone who doesn't see that, and gives even rhetorical space for pretexes like "historical accuracy" or "gameplay" or "games journalism", is perpetuating that same I'll the same way white "moderates" who argued the civil rights movement shouldnt actually do anything.
I know this sounds harsh, but the ordinary response to a game you don't like is to just not buy it. If you don't like the gameplay or the graphics, or the voice acting, or the labor practices of the developer, or whatever, simply not paying for it and not playing is the best and primary way to signal that.
I didn't suggest that this kind of bad behavior is always easily addressed. I said and will say again that when assertions of bias are not easily addressed, the ongoing bias is literally more important than anything else that could be addressed.
When a Nazi sits down at your table, either kick him out or accept that you're a Nazi.
EA including women in a video game, saying "accept it or don't buy the game", and anyone continuing on after that is absolutely perpetuating a societal ill.
Rather than give a full reply, I’m going to ask you to rephrase this because this is a really confusing line. I don’t know what “continuing on” refers to. The sentence structure suggests EA’s inclusion of women in a game was a societal ill; but I’ll give you time to clarify on that.
I think you need to intentionally misread that sentence to get that interpretation. But, since you asked:
[Since] EA [is] including women in a video game, [and responded to complaints by] saying "accept it or don't buy the game", [their message is clear] and anyone continuing on [with their complaints] after that is absolutely perpetuating a societal ill.
I'm not all that interested in letting you sealion about how it's unfair for me to dismiss somebody's "very real" concerns just because unrepentant sexist bigots are also making sexist attacks. So I'll also quote and annotate my original point:
[Bigotry is] either an easily addressed distraction or it's a persistent problem [that is more urgent than near any other concern].
I think in general it is best to avoid name calling and unnecessary details. This
That allows deflection through straw man arguments, tone policing, ad hominim, etc.
So maybe I can try to give an idea of a more specific real-world example.
Say there’s a Discord group, where everyone plays COD, but also some members are very practiced in making fake SWAT calls, and innocent people have nearly been killed by them.
That is a big, urgent issue; one that can drive emotions. Picture that an influencer gives a statement like “These gamers are horrible, worthless people.”
You’re right, that an absolutely perfect, flawless statement might have been “The people SWATting in that Discord are horrible and worthless.” But assume the statement, in its emotion, tried to be contextual and descriptive, mentioning “gamers”.
In your definition, this might be an unnecessary detail. Yet, that’s not a huge misstep; and yet someone could potentially weaponize that statement so it sounds like the influencer believes all members of that Discord, or even all gamers, are horrible. AND, by pulling attention to that statement, they both draw attention off that Discord, and discourage people from speaking out on it.
Worse, let’s say the next influencer gives a perfect statement: “We will bring SWATters to justice”. If people have already fallen under the misconception that this is a cultural war targeting gamers, then they might invent reasons to oppose that second statement anyway, since they feel their identity is being attacked. So it can even discourage people from speaking up in the “wrong” way.
Hence why I’d like to work on terminology for the misdirection, rather than tone policing on the exact words people use; something that can help us call it out. Unnecessary details like “black”, “female” or non-identity descriptors like “blue-collar” can be a misstep, but they are not the largest evil in a lot of cases.
Thank you. I grew up with a lot of unnecessary details described around me, so I was having difficulty defing a more innocent example.
I stick by my examples. You can find more information on them in the Wikipedia link in the other reply.
race or appearance
Not sure if I miss the point. Why deception? The paradox of tolerance. Antifascism. Bob is a racist.
Also whataboutism. But all Nazis are shit
I did say this in the example, but the mis-grouping can be more than just by race or aspects of identity. Blue hair was picked to shorten the example, not to make it a racial thing. Sometimes, the misleading about who is performing the grouping can be performed by the "Mike" regardless of what Bob said, by cherry-picking statements and leading people to draw inferences. Sometimes all it takes is Bob making any statement like "They're all bastards!" absent of extremely specific context around who Bob means by "They".
If that still doesn't make sense, I could provide more examples.
Bob is doing the grouping. He segregates (also himself) by saying things like "they all..."
People don't like segregation, because it's groundless gatekeeping, and also don't like being called bastards. Bob is only being unfair and expects people to do what he wants. Not sure if I would trust Bob when he said anything about anyone, especially when it's about blue haired people.
No, you're doing the grouping. Here, I'll give you the full quote that I didn't include in my above context (easy to do in this case since it's a made-up scenario)
"I can't believe there are farmers out there that would sell people rotten produce, knowingly! That's a betrayal of everything agriculture stands for! They're all bastards!"
"Those are harsh words."
"They are. I grew up on a farming community. So many of these people are working with what they've got, and will still give you the shirt off their back. Wonderful folks all around. So hearing about cheats like that, not caring about who they poison, really boils my blood."
But-!...You may cry. This full excerpt makes clear he loves farmers! He just specifically hates the ones that sell rotten produce! That doesn't matter. I could still say that: When talking about farmers, Bob was quoted: "They're all bastards" and that simple statement would be correct.
So I'm sure you are ready to give a wealth of reasons why "that doesn't count", but this really does happen in modern contexts, over just a few words.
You just didn't say it like that before. Did Bob or anyone clear this up? I'd say whoever twisted his words is selling rotten products. And also an idiot for trying to denounce him for whatever was available and would upset people.
I'd still say whataboutism .. by using a lie
Sometimes all it takes is Bob making any statement like “They’re all bastards!” absent of extremely specific context around who Bob means by “They”.
Part of the whole point of this sentence is that I am, very intentionally, including that quote, absent of context. So yes, I didn't "say it like that before" - that's the point.
The theoretical Bob also might not follow online conversations, or feel he owes anyone any apologies. So no, in many real cases, he will not clear anything up with anyone. In many real cases, the "full interview" will be harder to find than the selected bit that deceivers will highlight. It comes down to individuals being willing to ask clarifying questions about these partial-context presentations.
This deceiver is clearly not an idiot, because they got you to say: "Bob is only being unfair and expects people to do what he wants. Not sure if I would trust Bob when he said anything about anyone, especially when it’s about blue haired people.". I could even extend the example: Now, another Michael who wants to generate division can come to this forum, and point to the way you describe him, and get Bob to believe you hate him, even if you were only interpreting twisted words.
I think youre making some great examples of what youre looking for here.
I don't know if there is a word to describe it though, but I'm leaning towards DARVO or at least the subset "Reverse Victim and Offender", or something simpler like blame-shifting or attention-shifting.
What's wrong with you. Only you made me say this by providing insufficient information lol.
Bob can clear up things. Talking to everyone.
What do you want? You don't like people talking shit about you because of what others might think. But then you claim you don't care about other people's opinions at all and don't want to correct wrong statements because you wouldn't feel the need? Of course "Bob" is dependent on other people, just like every human.
Red herring, ad hominem
I want to say it's a bit strawman as well but it fits in line with the red herring.
It's generally called "scapegoating."
I don’t initially agree with this. In scapegoating, most people are aware of some initial problem, eg “The town’s funds are gone!” Scapegoating might pick out an easily accessible, identified cause, like “We spent too much on fixing Dave’s farm! Get our money back from him!” even if there’s a less visible cause like mayoral embezzlement.
But in the OP example, many of the participants are unaware of some foundational problem like the robbery or missing funds. They see the reaction in its sole context, and judge it through that alone.