If there's one thing that social justice warriors love to do is to attack and try to discredit notable people who are critical of their ideology, no matter how far they have to go to achieve that. If they have to lie and distort, they'll happily do that. There are two methods that they commonly use that are particularly fallacious.
Firstly, the guilt-by-association tactic: If they can't point out any particular "crime" or reproachable thing that somebody has done, they will instead try to discredit that person by associating him or her with the "enemy" (the "alt-right", "right-wingers", "nazis", etc), no matter how tenuous and forced that connection may be.
For example, if that person eg. follows dozens or even hundreds of people on social media, like Twitter, chances are that at least a few of them are notorious "right-wingers" and public enemies of the regressive left. Therefore the SJWs can point to those and say "see? He follows these people, therefore he's a right-winger himself."
Obviously if he ever retweets anything from such a person, or comments on a social media post of such a person, or interacts in any way, shape or form with such a person, he's guilty of the same things as that person!
But the connection doesn't even need to be that direct. If that doesn't work, then it's enough for some "right-wingers" to follow him on social media for the guilt-by-association accusations to be thrown. And it can get even more tenuous than that. I have seen examples where they accuse of person A of being "alt-right" or whatever because some of the people who follow this person A on social media also follow some other person B who is notoriously "alt-right" (according to the SJWs). Even though there's no direct connection between A and B, just the mere fact that some people follow both on social media is enough for them to make the connection, even though person A has no way to control who third-parties follow on social media.
The second fallacious tactic used by SJWs is to, rather than point out what a person has done, to instead point what he has not done.
They will eg. accuse someone of being a "white supremacist", and when asked what's their evidence for this accusations, they will say that that person "has not condemned white supremacists", and therefore, somehow, he implicitly supports them. Or the "alt-right". Or the KKK. Or whatever group they can concoct. The SJWs especially like to use this tactic against Trump, as it's one of the most common arguments they present against him. He hasn't condemned such-and-such group, therefore he's one of them and supports them. (This even though in many cases Trump actually has explicitly publicly condemned those groups, but of course the SJWs will happily ignore that.)
This is a rather ridiculous form of argumentation. Does a person somehow support some kind of group or reproachable act if he doesn't meticulously list all of them in condemnation. Does a person need to go through the hundreds and hundreds of crimes and objectionable groups and "condemn" them out loud, lest he be associated with those things?
Firstly, the guilt-by-association tactic: If they can't point out any particular "crime" or reproachable thing that somebody has done, they will instead try to discredit that person by associating him or her with the "enemy" (the "alt-right", "right-wingers", "nazis", etc), no matter how tenuous and forced that connection may be.
For example, if that person eg. follows dozens or even hundreds of people on social media, like Twitter, chances are that at least a few of them are notorious "right-wingers" and public enemies of the regressive left. Therefore the SJWs can point to those and say "see? He follows these people, therefore he's a right-winger himself."
Obviously if he ever retweets anything from such a person, or comments on a social media post of such a person, or interacts in any way, shape or form with such a person, he's guilty of the same things as that person!
But the connection doesn't even need to be that direct. If that doesn't work, then it's enough for some "right-wingers" to follow him on social media for the guilt-by-association accusations to be thrown. And it can get even more tenuous than that. I have seen examples where they accuse of person A of being "alt-right" or whatever because some of the people who follow this person A on social media also follow some other person B who is notoriously "alt-right" (according to the SJWs). Even though there's no direct connection between A and B, just the mere fact that some people follow both on social media is enough for them to make the connection, even though person A has no way to control who third-parties follow on social media.
The second fallacious tactic used by SJWs is to, rather than point out what a person has done, to instead point what he has not done.
They will eg. accuse someone of being a "white supremacist", and when asked what's their evidence for this accusations, they will say that that person "has not condemned white supremacists", and therefore, somehow, he implicitly supports them. Or the "alt-right". Or the KKK. Or whatever group they can concoct. The SJWs especially like to use this tactic against Trump, as it's one of the most common arguments they present against him. He hasn't condemned such-and-such group, therefore he's one of them and supports them. (This even though in many cases Trump actually has explicitly publicly condemned those groups, but of course the SJWs will happily ignore that.)
This is a rather ridiculous form of argumentation. Does a person somehow support some kind of group or reproachable act if he doesn't meticulously list all of them in condemnation. Does a person need to go through the hundreds and hundreds of crimes and objectionable groups and "condemn" them out loud, lest he be associated with those things?
Comments
Post a Comment