Fighting in the War on Truth and Reason

It is clearer than ever that going forward the liberal-conservative and urban-rural political-culture wars will probably remain bitter, and deeply polarizing and distrust generating. With Trump effectively out of the way[1], one can see in radical right conservative rhetoric the same dark free speech (DFS) arguments and reasoning that were used before. If one is to effectively spot and rebut the lies, emotional manipulation and flawed reasoning, it helps to consider some of the most common and most effective DFS tactics. Three of the more common fallacies are summarized below.

Straw man fallacy

The strawman argument is a an easy way to make a weak DFS position look stronger than it is. Straw man avoids directly dealing with opposing views. Instead this fallacy substitutes a weaker argument that is more easily rebutted. That generates a false appearance of a weak DFS argument rebutting a stronger original argument. Examples of the straw man include:

 

“The Senator thinks we can solve all our ecological problems by driving a Prius.”

“The Senator thinks the environment is such a wreck that no one’s car choice or driving habits would make the slightest difference.”

False dilemma fallacy 

This fallacy is also called the “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy” or “false dichotomy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. It’s not a fallacy if there actually are only two options. This fallacy is often an emotional manipulation ploy intended to polarize the audience by making one side look good and honest, while demonizing the other. Examples include:

“Either we go to war, or we appear weak.”

“Either you are pro-NRA or you oppose the 2nd Amendment and/or want to take all of our guns away.”

“Either we shelter in place, strictly observe social distancing and wear masks on those rare occasions when we have to venture out (in which case, we obviously don’t care a whit about the economy), or we reopen our businesses and start to resume “normal” life (in which case, we obviously don’t care a whit about people or safety or the common good).”

“Either we let every immigrant into our country, or we close the borders for everyone.”

Red herring fallacy

A red herring fallacy can be difficult to spot because it’s not always clear how different topics relate. A side topic may be used in a relevant way, or in an irrelevant way. There are usually several factors or lines on reasoning involved in political disagreements. Various subtopics can be entangled in issues. The red herring is a DFS attempt to divert the attention away from the relevant issue by raising another, usually irrelevant issue. It is an intentional distraction tactic to move the argument or a question to a different issue that is easier to respond to. Clarifying how one part of the conversation is relevant to the core topic helps spot and rebut red herrings. When one spots a red herring, one can rebut it by saying it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, and/or by explaining why it is fallacious. If the persoming trying to use the red herring refuses to stay on point, one can allow the change of topic, insist on going back to the original argument, or just disengage from the discussion.

Red herrings by Trump include:

“I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1 in terror, no problem!” 

“It’s locker room talk, and it’s one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS.”

Example in the media:

Reporter: “It’s been two years since your policies were implemented, and so far they have failed to reduce unemployment rates.” 

Politician: “I have been working hard ever since I came into office, and I’m happy to say that I met with many business leaders throughout the country, who all say that they are glad to see that our hard work is paying off.”

Footnote: 

1. That assumes the supreme court or GOP state legislatures do not intervene to re-elect Trump. The odds of that seem to be so low that it is not a realistic possibility. Nonetheless, the odds of successful intervention for Trump are not zero, but pretty close.