Definition of the fallacy "two things with an anecdotal similarity are treated as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear out because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of relevant additional factors".

This fallacy is at the core of many of the other fallacies, and other fallacies have been created to reinforce the truth of this one.

Example 1

On April 30, 1975 the fall of the city of Saigon marked the end of the Vietnam War and the start of a major refugee crisis. Millions of Vietnamese people fled their homes looking for refuge and freedom and many tried escaping across the South China Sea in small leaky boats.

Two distinct events are quietly made into one by placing a reference to the fall of Saigon next to a reference to the boat people crisis, without further comment as to the similarities and differences between the two events. The fallacy is in not pointing out the differences between the two events that are relevant to the discussion at hand.

This fallacy is used to pick out characteristics from either event and attribute them to all of the Vietnamese refugees in Canada. For example, they are all victims of the fall of Saigon (the first event only), or they were welcomed to Canada in large numbers (the second event only).

For example, we often hear that since the fall of Saigon caused the refugees to come to Canada, we can make an homage to the refuges with an homage to Saigon. One of the differences not pointed out is that the boat people came from all over Vietnam, with probably a majority coming from the north. With that knowledge, one realizes that the homage idea is actually a political attack on the boat people, not an homage.

Another relevant difference is the very different approaches that Canada, the UNHCR, and the world took to dealing with the two events. In particular, no one was admitted to Canada for the sole reason that they were a victim of the fall of Saigon because they were not UNHCR refugees.

The originator of this quote might defend it by arguing that some of the victims of the fall of Saigon left in small leaky boats. They did, but the key word making it a reference to the boat people crisis is "millions". Less than 200,000 left after the fall of Saigon, not all left in boats, most that did were picked up offshore by US military ships, and a very, very small fraction of those ended up in Canada. The number of boat people comes much closer to "millions". The whole point of the fallacy is to equate the boat people, who were welcomed into Canada, with the Saigon elite, who were not welcomed into Canada in large numbers.

Like nearly every example on this page, this is also a persuasive definition fallacy (dog whistle). The former boat people will understand this as a lowering of their legitimacy in Canada: because they did not come from Saigon, they are not being recognized. Their identity has been stolen.

Discussion

This is by far the most common fallacy because this example appears in some form in every political statement and press release, and in any mention in the media about the Vietnamese in Canada. The quote above is from bill S-219, so it is reiterated every year in Journey to Freedom Day (the name of the day itself being a persuasive definition fallacy).

This fallacy is also the basis for other fallacies, such as the illustrations shown for 'appeal to emotion' and 'affirming the consequent'. This fallacy is so fundamental to the political agenda, that other fallacies have been created to reinforce the truth of this one -- see the illustrations for 'appeal to authority' and 'faulty generalization'.

Definition of the fallacy: "noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property".

Example 1

Many politicians, on being informed that Journey to Freedom day is an homage to the ARVN and not the boat people, shrug it off as irrelevant: "it's an homage to the boat people because I say it is an homage to the boat people".

This takes off from the false equivalency of the two groups and applies it to the event, overlooking the fact that the event is a partisan statement about the Vietnam war and that the two groups differ greatly on their perspectives on that war. The larger group (boat people) are unlikely to identify as supporters of the Saigon regime and to ask them to do so is a powerful insult. For a politicians to do it, it is intimidation.

The politicians who shrug that off are chauvinistic, but depending on how you interpret their motives, we could call it either a false analogy (out of ignorance or laziness) or a persuasive definition, lowering the status of the boat people (out of malice).

Definition of the fallacy: "a situation is claimed to be an either/or situation when in fact there are more options". Also called false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, or black-or-white fallacy.

This fallacy is usually communicated to the Vietnamese community as a dog whistle, or to politicians quietly behind closed doors. In any case, it is intimidation: "you will support the Saigon regime or you will be ostracized". For Vietnamese people the fallacy is understood in anything that recognizes the Saigon regime as a legitimate regime, that is, almost everything that politicians say or do with the community. This dog whistle has been in existence since 1954.

Definition of the fallacy: "after this, therefore because of this; temporal sequence implies causation".

... a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War

This is probably a combination of several fallacies all in one sentence.

We all know that some Vietnamese left Vietnam at the fall of Saigon. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here is the assertion that the fall of Saigon is what caused them to be admitted to Canada.

Another fallacy in this sentence is the implied false equivalency. We all know that Canada admitted a lot of boat people (refugees). They were not the people that left Vietnam at the fall of Saigon and neither their departure nor their admission to Canada was caused by the fall of Saigon.

Another fallacy that you could call a dog whistle (persuasive definition): the day of commemoration referred to is known by the Vietnamese community to be a partisan commemoration that only people from Saigon would participate in and so this statement is in that sense true. But the government intends it to commemorate the boat people, most of whom are not from Saigon. When the boat people are made to understand that intention, then they must read this as an instruction for them conform -- to become partisan supporters of the Saigon regime. If that sounds like a stretch, various politicians have made it clear that instruction is what is intended. All it takes is one time, and then this statement is ever after a dog whistle reminding the boat people of their responsibility.

Definition of the fallacy: "taking a true conditional statement and invalidly inferring its converse".

All of these have the false equivalence fallacy as a prerequisite -- that the refugees that Canada admitted were victims of the fall of Saigon.

This one can be re-phrased to meet the needs of the occasion:

"We admitted them at their time of defeat therefore they were our allies therefore we must participate in the flag raising ceremonies and military memorials."

"We participate in their flag raising ceremonies and military memorials, therefore they must have been our allies, therefore that must be who we admitted as the boat people"

It's also a dog whistle because the Vietnamese community knows how to interpret the real message: "they are our allies so you had better respect them." "We may have admitted you originally on a non-partisan basis, but that's off he table now". "Since you are not former ARVN your status in Canada is questionable so you had better lay low." These interpretations have been assisted by politicians at various times, especially when the Harper government was in power. They are remembered today because no one refutes them.

Definition of the fallacy; "the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly support the conclusions".

Media often publish first person stories from boat people who happened to have served in the ARVN and came from Saigon (although not often in 1975). These are supposed to be "representative" stories, but they probably represent at very small portion. One never reads a different sort of story.

Definition of the fallacy: "purports to describe the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use". Also known as dog whistle politics.

There are two types of dog whistle in circulation. Most of the examples on this page are in some way dog whistles because they all have meanings for the Vietnamese community that are not understood by others, particularly because they always come from authority figures.

Another type of dog whistle are statements that are put out entirely as dog whistles with an intent to deceive the listener:

"This flag/scarf that looks just like the national flag of the Saigon military dictatorship is actually the 'Heritage and Freedom flag/scarf'."

"That partisan, war-related event that the organizers call a flag raising ceremony and military memorial is actually an homage to the boat people (who were admitted to Canada on a non-partisan basis)."

"Those people in ARVN military uniforms are actually the Vietnamese community because the banner their friends are carrying says so."

The hypocrisy is unusually visible in all of these, for example, in calling the national flag of a military dictatorship the 'Heritage and Freedom flag'.

The politician-listener hears a statement of fact, the Vietnamese listener hears instructions (see "affirming the consequent").

Definition of the fallacy: "An argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning".

We often read stories and hear politicians making statements about how rough the journey was for the boat people. The journey was not so rough for the people who left at the fall of Saigon, they having been transported by the US military, and yet those are the ones we are specifically commemorating, not the boat people.

Definition of the fallacy: "argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion".

Made to happen by changing history, and an authority's reference to the history makes it true. This is how the revised history is made to be true.

This one is repeated incessantly. The plaques were done with several ministers, an historian, and a UNHCR representative. Every press release and statement from a politicians refers to 1975. The UNHCR is referred to repeatedly, as well so the 1975 event must have been a UN refugee crisis (it wasn't).

The Minister responsible Immigration and Citizenship can be counted on for such a statement at least once a year, suggesting that there might also be a dog whistle in that one -- something about reminding you of your responsibilities as an immigrant.

Strategic omission

Contextualization