Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Yassine Meskhout's avatar

I really appreciate this series of posts.

The distinction between actions & actors is a very subtle but important idea, and it made me think about how many times I myself fall prey to the confusion. The scenario that most readily comes to mind is the discourse on killings by police in the US. I regularly cited the number of people killed (~1,000 per year on average) as *indicative* of a problem. As far as I can recall I've never offered the bare number as conclusive evidence of a problem with US policing, since 1) 1000 dead is a drop in the overall death bucket and 2) it doesn't tell us anything about which deaths were "justified". Necessarily, that one stat needs to be accompanied by other premises to shore up the overall argument.

Which dovetails into another point, which is that this post shouldn't be confused with the similar-looking phenomena involving the ecological fallacy or confounding variable problem. An example is examining the positive correlation between income & age, and then erroneously concluding this is proof of discrimination against the young. Similarly, one can examine the lopsided Palestinian casualties and erroneously conclude it's proof of animus/oppression/unfairness/etc. That seems to be a different fallacy from the distinction between actions & actors that you're describing in this post, but I can see how easily the two might get confused together.

Expand full comment
Archibald Stein's avatar

"2,000,000 German civilians died in bombings like what happened in Dresden."

Where are you getting this estimate from? The estimates I see online are much lower.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts