Is there a name for this form of group deception? (see desc)

2026-04-30 19:04 UTC

Take the following premise. Bob sees Mike (who has blue hair) rob an orphanage, and considers him a bad man. Bob exclaims in a public forum, “That blue-haired sneak! He should be found and put in jail.” Mike (wearing a mask while on the run) highlights this statement, replaying a record of it in another location, and adding: “I can’t believe Bob would say such terrible things about blue-haired people! This is extreme bigotry!” Jill, who also has blue hair, and Derek, who simply doesn’t like bigotry, both miss the context of the robbery that happened earlier, and are shocked at the isolated statement. When the town meets later, the issue of a robbery at the orphanage is downplayed, and the town instead spends the meeting condemning Bob’s bigotry. While a lot could be said about the whole sequence, I want to find out if there is a shortened term used to refer to the deception by Mike when deliberately misrepresenting the grouping of a targeted statement; eg, to build class solidarity the wrong way. The closest I’ve found might be “Strawmanning” or “Divide and Conquer” but it seems common enough I’d like to see if there’s a name. I tried to generalize by picking “blue hair” for the example, but I admit it’d be an odd, off-color statement by race or appearance. There are still other forms of grouping that are more common to state in conversation, like “gamers” or “voters”, or “farmers”, in which such statements could apply to all, or just some, of that broad group.

Replies (8)

@kbal@fedia.io 2026-04-30 20:02

There may be something relevant in wikipedia's list of [propaganda techniques](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques) but I think the mostly it's just what is technically called "lying."

Open ##1935821
@ideonek@piefed.social 2026-05-01 15:51

I don't know man, from the sidelines it looks like you are banding over backwards to call a racist comment something other than "racist".

Open ##1935822
@Katana314@lemmy.world 2026-05-01 13:31

While I think some people have felt that there are existing terms that fit more broadly, my vote for a brand new term to address it would be "pulling for false victims". I added the word "false", because in some contexts pulling for more victims using full, detailed context is a perfectly legitimate strategy to fight a larger power. (For instance, one woman who's been harassed by an employer could talk to other women in the workplace about it, and find that there's a large group of women all suffering that harassment. If it's not using deceptive interpretations, it can achieve justice for an affected group) It was also interesting to see in comments how much of the discourse turned to race. It's possible I misplanned the example by using "blue hair", since that's an element of birth identity much like being black or a woman. As a result, a lot of the conversation went deliberately to just how bad "Bob" is, with the direct allegory being something like "That damned black kid". But, it's also interesting how much people center on that, since they view social issues as naturally receiving less attention than obvious ills like robbing an orphanage, and want to champion that highlighting. Part of what I was trying to show, but didn't do a good job of, is how many aspects can be a part of someone's identity beyond their circumstances of birth. As a gamer, "gamer" is an easy one, but political affiliation, hobbies, or even just owners of a certain kind of product could be used for this deceptive political movement. These descriptors are more likely to be brought up in mention, or even specific targeting; which can provide bad actors more ways to use the fallacy. I see a *lot* of potential avenues by which malicious actors can "pull for false victims", which is why the subject intrigued me. Picture, for instance, a Democratic senator who sees Republicans vote against sane gun legislation, and claim "Republicans just want to see kids die in schools!" in reference to those senators. Even if this laments NRA influence, it's unfortunately common in American politics to inherit political affiliation to one's identity, so even if a Republican voter is a gun owner in favor of reasonable gun regulation, the Republican senator may present that quote as a warning sign, causing the voter to believe that Democrats directly hate *him*, not his representatives, and/or are being ignorant of that Republican's own letters of support for gun regulation. The kicker is comments here in which the very trick plays out in full, without a whole lot of intentional effort. People used to seeing social injustice may hear a very, very short quote and believe they understand the full context of it, "pulling for false victims" themselves. Admittedly, during made-up internet examples, there's no way to research further, but there are also real-world cases where the subject is so obscure, the only released information is that of a deceitful actor, with no "lengthy explanation" available to correct for context. The only full safeguard would be to come away from partial information with questions and no concrete opinions; though it'd also make sense to bear strong suspicion towards a journalist or user that would release a photo or quote with no idea where it came from or why.

Open ##1935823
@DomeGuy@lemmy.world 2026-04-30 20:43

I think the terms most applicable to the situation you described are "bigotry" and "democracy" In your initial description, blue-haired Mike's misdeeds are considered by the town to be of less importance than Bob's bias against blue-haired people. No deception occurs -- the group is merely spending their time addressing an ongoing general ill rather than a completed special ill. This is *generally just fine.* Groups tend to rightly recognize that ongoing issues are of greater priority than completed misdeeds, and perpetuated bias is essentially always an ongoing issue. There isnt a specific word for a wrongdoer attempting to distract from their misdeeds by exaggerating someone's bias. It's either an easily addressed distraction (bob says "I'm sorry I contributed to anti-blue-hair bias when reporting Mike's misdeed" and the town moves on to the orphan robbery) or it's a persistent problem ("why are you wasting time on the hurt feelings of those worthless blue-haired freaks; somebody STOLE a COOKIE from an ORPHANAGE!")

Open ##1935824
@404@lemmy.zip 2026-04-30 20:00

Red herring, ad hominem

Open ##1935825
@EyIchFragDochNur@lemmy.world 2026-04-30 21:28

>race or appearance Not sure if I miss the point. Why deception? The paradox of tolerance. Antifascism. Bob is a racist. Also whataboutism. But all Nazis are shit

Open ##1935826
@SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 2026-04-30 19:47

I think in general it is best to avoid name calling and unnecessary details. This That allows deflection through straw man arguments, tone policing, ad hominim, etc.

Open ##1935827
@foodandart@lemmy.zip 2026-04-30 19:15

It's generally called "scapegoating."

Open ##1935828