# What fallacy is this: "where is the outrage?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 16, 2015, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678 "2015-11-16T08:18:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![scudsucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scudsucker/32/14101_2.png) [@scudsucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scudsucker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/1 "2015-11-16T08:18:51Z")
So with the Paris attacks, I’ve heard many people (falsely) claiming that Muslims implicitly support the attacks; because if they do not, then “where is the Muslim outrage?” When Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad, as well as Iran have condemned the attacks, I think that that question is rather stupid. But it is also obviously a logical fallacy: if I do not see X then X does not exist. Is this fallacy "[Personal Incredulity](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity)? It is obviously a [loaded question](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question) as well, but does it qualify for [The Texas Shapshooter](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter)? I’m leaning towards the latter, but it seems to be the opposite: rather than using evidence of correlation the argument uses absence of evidence, so it doesn’t feel quite right. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/2 "2015-11-16T08:33:24Z")
I’d just call it totalitarian bad manners: that everyone must publicly display an approved set of emotions in an approved manner or else be thought suspect of… well, something or other, and definitely Not One Of Us. (As in, long before the internet, “poppyism” in the UK at the this time of year, and the Diana Memorial Hysteria, and nowadays endless Facebook memes). In this particular case it’s a subset of “othering”, but I don’t know if there’s an establised taxonomy of those. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/3 "2015-11-16T09:56:12Z")
Also, whatever the philosophical taxonomy, there is Lenin’s concept of “useful idiocy”: the more people who can be persuaded to provide evidence to persuade Muslims that they’re all being tarred with the “terrorist” brush, the more support ISIS hopes to arouse. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/4 "2015-11-16T11:02:08Z")
Excluded middle, black and white thinking. The logic seems to be either group X disapproves Y in which case there would be outrage, or they support Y in which case there would a be lack of outrage. One can think of many reasons for a hypothetical lack of outrage. Moreover, you could take the opposite to test it: if the group likes it so much, there should be plenty of examples of support. This suffers the same fallacy, but it’s consistent with the original questioner and could put them in a bind. Although not a fallacy, the line of thinking also tends to be hypocritical, because most people don’t go around condemning anything that could be tenuously connected to them by an opponent. And even if they did, it’s not really possible to do it in a way that would be easily accessible to most people. I could, on behalf of all white people, condemn Adam Sandler right now, but only a couple hundred people will see it. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/5 "2015-11-16T13:32:38Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > … I could, on behalf of all white people, condemn Adam Sandler right now, but only a couple hundred people will see it. H8ers gonna h8. ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/6 "2015-11-16T15:00:31Z")
Strictly speaking, this isn’t a logical fallacy. At least not a formal one. From wiki: > [@](#): > > In philosophy, a formal fallacy (also called logical fallacy) is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic So we can set this up as: If Muslims are against the Paris attacks then they will display moral outrage. Then the law of implication reversal says that: If Muslims don’t display moral outrage, then they aren’t against the Paris attacks. So there’s nothing wrong with the logical structure of that argument. Now, I agree that the premise is flawed, making it an informal fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/7 "2015-11-16T15:13:42Z")
> [@D18](#): > > Strictly speaking, this isn’t a logical fallacy. At least not a formal one. > > From wiki: > > So we can set this up as: > > If Muslims are against the Paris attacks then they will display moral outrage. > > Then the law of implication reversal says that: > > If Muslims don’t display moral outrage, then they aren’t against the Paris attacks. > > So there’s nothing wrong with the logical structure of that argument. > > Now, I agree that the premise is flawed, making it an informal fallacy. never mind: I’m not clear how far “premise” extends in your example. ---
**Author:** ![GoodOmens](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@GoodOmens](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoodOmens)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/8 "2015-11-16T16:03:28Z")
Argumentum ex silencio? The arguer isn’t aware of any outrage, and therefore is assuming that there isn’t any? It doesn’t get to the heart of the argument, which is that “all Muslim people must universally condemn anything bad that Muslims do,” but it’s one element. ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/9 "2015-11-16T16:05:27Z")
**Dr. Drake** , the issue is whether the premise “If Muslims are against the Paris attacks then they will display moral outrage” is true. (Which it isn’t, obviously - there are all kinds of other ways that Muslims can manifest their being against the attacks). So this is an an invalid argument or an unsound argument, but it isn’t a logical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/10 "2015-11-16T17:01:36Z")
> [@D18](#): > > So we can set this up as: > > If Muslims are against the Paris attacks then they will display moral outrage. > > Then the law of implication reversal says that: > > If Muslims don’t display moral outrage, then they aren’t against the Paris attacks. > > So there’s nothing wrong with the logical structure of that argument. That sounds like [false dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) (aka _false dichotomy_). It wrongly ignores other possibilities (i.e. some people may be against the attacks, but aren’t vocal about the outrage - at least not vocal enough for you to hear about it). ---
**Author:** ![scudsucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scudsucker/32/14101_2.png) [@scudsucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scudsucker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/11 "2015-11-17T06:35:37Z")
Thanks everyone. Obviously, when arguing on the internet pointing out the illogic of someone’s argument is going to achieve a net result of zero - so the advice offered is only for my benefit, but I do appreciate the assistance. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-fallacy-is-this-where-is-the-outrage/737678/12 "2015-11-17T07:33:35Z")
What about the “burden of proof” fallacy? I don’t require someone at a funeral to scream, wail and gnash their teeth in order to believe that they are feeling sad or grieving. Claiming that they are not would be an extraordinary claim. > **[Your logical fallacy is burden of proof](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)** > > You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.