Protests: Guilt by Association
It is tempting to define a group you do not like by the worst people associated with it, but this can lead to committing the fallacy of guilt by association. To illustrate, conservative protests sometimes include people openly displaying racist symbols and this can lead leftists to conclude that all the protestors are racists. As another example, protests against Israel’s actions sometimes include people who make antisemitic statements, and this leads some people to categorize the protests as antisemitic. While this is often done in bad faith, people can sincerely make unwarranted inferences about protests from the worst people present.
用与之相关的最糟糕的人来定义你不喜欢的群体是很诱人的，但这可能会导致犯下因关联而有罪的谬误。举例来说，保守派抗议活动有时包括人们公开展示种族主义标志，这可能会导致左翼人士得出结论，所有抗议者都是种族主义者。再举一个例子，反对以色列行动的抗议活动有时包括发表反犹太主义言论的人，这导致一些人将抗议活动归类为反犹太主义。虽然这通常是恶意的，但人们可以真诚地从在场最糟糕的人那里对抗议活动做出毫无根据的推断。
Since people generally do not make their reasoning clear, it often must be reconstructed. One possible line of bad reasoning is the use of a hasty generalization. A hasty generalization occurs when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough to adequately support the concussion. It has the following form:
由于人们通常不清楚地解释他们的推理，因此通常必须对其进行重建。一种可能的糟糕推理是使用仓促的概括。当一个人根据样本得出关于某个人群的结论时，该样本不足以充分支持脑震荡，就会发生仓促的概括。它具有以下形式：
Premise 1: Sample S (which is too small) is taken from population P.
前提 1： 样本 S（ 太小 ）取自总体 P。
Premise 2: In Sample S X% of the observed A’s are B’s.
前提 2： 在样本 S 中，观察到的 A 中有 X% 是 B。
Conclusion: X% of all A’s are B’s in Population P.
结论： 所有 A 的 X% 是总体 P 中的 B。
This is a fallacy because the sample is too small to warrant the inference. In the case of the protesters, inferring that most conservative protesters are racists based on some of them displaying racist symbols would be an error. Likewise, inferring that most people protesting Israel are antisemitic because some of them say antisemitic things would also be an error. At this point it is likely that someone is thinking that even if most conservative protesters are not open racists, they associate with them—thus warranting the inference that they are also guilty. Likewise, someone is probably thinking that people protesting Israel are guilty of antisemitism because of their association with antisemites. This leads us to the guilt by association fallacy.
这是一个谬论，因为样本太小，无法保证推论。就抗议者而言，根据其中一些抗议者展示种族主义标志来推断大多数保守派抗议者是种族主义者将是一个错误。同样，因为他们中的一些人说反犹太主义的话就推断大多数抗议以色列的人是反犹太主义的，这也是一个错误。在这一点上，很可能有人在想，即使大多数保守派抗议者不是公开的种族主义者，他们也会与他们交往——因此可以推断他们也有罪。同样，有人可能认为抗议以色列的人犯了反犹太主义罪，因为他们与反犹太主义者有联系。这让我们想到 了联想谬误的罪 恶感。
The guilt by association fallacy has many variations but this version occurs when it is inferred that a group or individual has bad qualities because of their (alleged) association with groups or individuals who have those qualities. The form of the fallacy is this:
关联有罪谬误有很多变化，但当推断出一个群体或个人由于（据称）与具有这些品质的群体或个人有关联而具有不良品质时，就会出现这种版本。谬误的形式是这样的：
Premise 1: Group or person A is associated with group or person B
前提 1： 组或个人 A 与组或个人 B 相关联
Premise 2: Group or person B has (bad) qualities P, Q, R.
前提 2： 群体或个人 B 具有 P、Q、R 的（坏）品质。
Conclusion: Group A has (bad) qualities P, Q, R.
结论： A 组具有 P、Q、R 的（坏）品质。
The error is that the only evidence offered is the (alleged) association between the two. What is wanting is an adequate connection that justifies the inference. In the conservative protester example, the protesters might be associated with protesters displaying racist symbols, but this is not enough to warrant the conclusion that they are racists. More is needed than a mere association. The more is, as one would imagine, a matter of considerable debate: those who loath conservatives will tend to accept relatively weak evidence as supporting their biased view; those who like the protesters might be blind even to the strongest evidence. Likewise for people protesting Israel. But whatever standards are used to judge association, they must be applied consistently—whether one loathes or loves the group or person.
错误在于，提供的唯一证据是两者之间的（据称）关联。需要的是一个证明推理合理的适当联系。在保守派抗议者的例子中，抗议者可能与展示种族主义标志的抗议者有关，但这不足以证明他们是种族主义者。需要的不仅仅是一个协会。正如人们可以想象的那样，这是一个相当大的争论问题：那些厌恶保守派的人会倾向于接受相对薄弱的证据来支持他们的偏见观点;那些喜欢抗议者的人甚至可能对最有力的证据视而不见。抗议以色列的人也是如此。但是，无论用什么标准来评判交往，都必须始终如一地应用——无论一个人厌恶还是热爱这个群体或个人。
As noted above, people who have protested Israel have been accused of association with antisemites. But the same standards applied to conservative protesters need to be applied: to infer that because some protesters have been observed to be antisemitic then most (or all) are as well would commit the hasty generalization fallacy. Naturally, if there is evidence showing that most conservative protesters are racist or evidence showing that most (or all) people who protest Israel are antisemitic, then the fallacy would not be committed.
如上所述，抗议以色列的人被指控与反犹主义者有联系。但需要采用适用于保守派抗议者的相同标准：推断因为一些抗议者被观察到是反犹太主义者，那么大多数（或全部）也是反犹太主义者，就会犯下草率的概括谬误。自然，如果有证据表明大多数保守派抗议者是种族主义者，或者有证据表明大多数（或全部）抗议以色列的人是反犹太主义者，那么就不会犯下这个谬误。
To infer that those protesting Israel are antisemitic because some associated with the protests are antisemitic would commit the guilt by association fallacy, just as the fallacy would be committed if one inferred that conservative protesters are racists because they are associated with racists. Obviously, if there is adequate evidence supporting these claims, then the fallacy would not be committed.
因为一些与抗议活动有关的人是反犹太主义者而推断出那些抗议以色列的人是反犹太主义者，就会犯下联想谬误的罪，就像如果一个人推断保守派抗议者是种族主义者，因为他们与种族主义者有联系，就会犯下谬误。显然，如果有足够的证据支持这些说法，那么这个谬误就不会发生。