I remember the name of the fallacy for this one! It’s called “correlation, not causation”. If thing X is correlated with thing Y and we agree that thing Y is bad, that does not necessarily mean thing X is bad. If you want to attack thing X, you have to give reasons why X is bad or why X leads to Y, not just that the two are correlated. This is not to mean that correlation is useless–if Communism (X) is heavily correlated to death and suffering (Y), and we both agree that Y is bad, it is a signal that it could be useful to look into whether X causes Y and, if so, why/how.
I remember the name of the fallacy for this one! It’s called “correlation, not causation”. If thing X is correlated with thing Y and we agree that thing Y is bad, that does not necessarily mean thing X is bad. If you want to attack thing X, you have to give reasons why X is bad or why X leads to Y, not just that the two are correlated. This is not to mean that correlation is useless–if Communism (X) is heavily correlated to death and suffering (Y), and we both agree that Y is bad, it is a signal that it could be useful to look into whether X causes Y and, if so, why/how.