Article: The problem with

shaming people for

Auschwitz selfies
https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-shaming
-people-for-auschwitz-selfies-224304

Zhunussova Lida
Zhumatayev Azamat
 • This text discusses the phenomenon of taking selfies at dark tourism sites,
particularly Holocaust memorial sites, and the subsequent online shaming of
individuals who engage in such behavior.

• 1. Selfies at dark tourism sites have become a regular occurrence and are widely regarded as controversial and distasteful.
• 2. Israeli-German artist Shahak Shapira launched a project called Yolocaust to shame visitors taking selfies at the Memorial to the
Murdered Jews of Europe in Germany.
• 3. Online vigilantes have been empowered to shame Holocaust-site selfie takers on social media, often using "yolocaust" as shorthand
for censure.
• 4. The text argues that it may be better for young people to engage with Holocaust sites in their own way rather than not engaging at
all.
• 5. It discusses the phenomenon of online vigilantism and public shaming, particularly in the context of perceived wrongdoings on the
internet.
• 6. The text explores factors that influence who receives negative comments for their selfies, such as age, gender, cultural identity,
pose, facial expression, and captions accompanying the photos.
• 7. It suggests that some patterns of negative comments may be related to societal norms regarding the sexualization and demeaning of
young women online.
• 8. The text acknowledges differences in visitor behavior between the Berlin Memorial and Auschwitz, speculating that selfie-taking at
Auschwitz is rare due to structured tours and the paid visitor attraction status.
• 9. It highlights the importance of captions accompanying selfies in determining whether they attract critical comments.
• 10. The text argues against banning selfie-taking at Holocaust memorial sites, emphasizing the importance of keeping alive the memory
1. Ad Hominem: When the text discusses the patterns of negative comments, particularly targeting younger,
conventionally attractive women, it implies that these individuals are more likely to receive negative
comments due to their characteristics rather than the appropriateness of their actions. This could be seen as
an ad hominem fallacy, as it attacks the person rather than addressing the substance of their actions.
2. Strawman: The text suggests that some online commenters use their comments to display moral
superiority rather than attempting to educate or influence behavior. While this may be true in some cases, it
could also be a strawman fallacy, misrepresenting the intentions of all online commenters who criticize
selfie-taking at Holocaust memorial sites as solely motivated by a desire for moral superiority.
3. False Dilemma: The argument that banning selfie-taking at Holocaust memorial sites is not necessary
because it's more important to keep the memory of the victims alive implies a false dilemma. It presents the
choice as either allowing selfie-taking or forgetting the victims, ignoring the possibility of alternative
methods of memorialization or engagement with the sites.
• These are just a few examples of potential logical fallacies present in the text. Identifying fallacies often
involves subjective interpretation, so different readers may identify different fallacies or interpret the text
differently.
 THE NEW YORKER, JANUARY 24, 2022
The New Yorker - January 24, 2022.pdf
Page 70

• 1. Strawman: The passage presents a caricatured image of conservatives as depicting their opponents as "élitist
buffoons" and using the image of "real," non-coastal Americans as a cudgel. While it's true that some conservatives
may use such rhetoric, presenting it in this simplistic and exaggerated manner could be considered a strawman
fallacy, as it misrepresents the complexity of conservative arguments and positions.
• 2. Hasty Generalization: The passage makes sweeping generalizations about the character and motivations of both
John Mellencamp and conservatives. It assumes that all conservatives use the image of "real" Americans in a
derogatory manner and that all Mellencamp's actions are driven solely by his political beliefs. This is a hasty
generalization, as it jumps to conclusions without sufficient evidence.
• 3. Appeal to Authority: The passage presents John Mellencamp as possessing instinctive knowledge akin to John
Steinbeck's understanding of desolation and loneliness. While Mellencamp may indeed have insights into the human
condition through his art, equating his knowledge with Steinbeck's may be considered an appeal to authority
fallacy, as it relies on his fame and reputation rather than the validity of his arguments or insights.
• 4. False Dichotomy: The passage seems to present a false dichotomy between appearing likable, grateful, or good-
natured, and being honest and unconcerned with commercial striving. It implies that one cannot be both honest
and likable or successful, which is a false dichotomy fallacy.
• These are potential instances of logical fallacies based on the content provided. Identifying fallacies often involves
subjective interpretation, so different readers may identify different fallacies or interpret the text differently.
 Atomic Habits by James Clear
• 1. False Dilemma: The excerpt presents a false dilemma by suggesting that the only two possible outcomes are getting 1% better each
day or declining nearly down to zero. While it's true that consistent improvement can lead to significant growth, it's not necessarily the
case that failure to improve by 1% daily leads to complete decline. This oversimplification ignores the potential for fluctuation and
variability in progress and sets up an unrealistic binary choice.
• 2. False Cause: The text implies a causal relationship between repeated actions and automatic behavior. It suggests that repeated
exposure to cues leads to automatic responses, framing it as if this is the only factor involved in habit formation. While repetition is
indeed an important aspect of habit formation, this oversimplifies the complex psychological and environmental factors that influence
behavior.
• 3. Appeal to Authority: The excerpt relies on the authority of scientific research to validate its claims about habit formation. While it's
important to base arguments on empirical evidence, simply citing scientific research without providing specific references or details can
be an appeal to authority fallacy. Readers may be inclined to accept the claims without critically evaluating the evidence presented.
• 4. Anecdotal Evidence: The excerpt uses anecdotal evidence, such as examples of successful habit formation techniques, to support its
arguments. While anecdotes can be persuasive and relatable, they do not constitute robust evidence on their own. Without broader
empirical support or statistical data, reliance on anecdotes can be considered a logical fallacy, especially if they are presented as
conclusive proof of a particular claim.
• 5. Bandwagon Fallacy: The text suggests that certain habit formation techniques, such as temptation bundling, are universally effective
without acknowledging potential variability in individual preferences and circumstances. By presenting these techniques as universally
applicable without acknowledging potential limitations or alternative approaches, the excerpt may inadvertently appeal to a bandwagon
fallacy, implying that everyone should adopt these methods.
• These are potential instances of logical fallacies that may be present in the text. While the principles and strategies discussed in "Atomic
Habits" can be valuable for personal development, critical evaluation of the evidence and reasoning presented is essential to avoid
accepting flawed arguments uncritically.