#straw man fallacy

[unsolicited-opinions]

Re: your post about the Ezra Klein, Coates interview, and specifically the analogy you drew about civil rights; I’m kind of confused about how you came to the conclusion that the Palestinians haven’t tried doing nonviolence. Did the march of return not count? Furthermore, moral sobriety did not convince the American public that black people weren’t inferior. I think you calling Coates a polemicist was incredibly uncharitable and shows apathy to the point that him and Klein both agreed on: that Israel is an apartheid state.

Thanks for the comment. I'll presume your good faith and return the same in this longish answer.

You wrote: "I'm kind of confused about how you came to the conclusion that the Palestinians haven't tried doing nonviolence." 

Your confusion may be a result of the fact that I neither said nor implied this. What you're doing here is called a straw man fallacy.[1] 

What I did say was that Civil Rights activists led by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Congress of Racial Equality were utterly committed to nonviolence. You can tell this is true by how they never committed acts of terrorism. 

You wrote: "Furthermore, moral sobriety did not convince the American public that black people weren't inferior."

I don't know what "moral sobriety" is. I don't know what moral inebriation would be, either.

I certainly didn't claim that moral sobriety accomplished anything and this is another straw man.[1] 

What I did claim was that the principled nonviolence of the Civil Rights Movement impacted public opinion sufficiently to get the  Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed. 

This is from the transcript of the Coates/Klein conversation[2]:

TA-NEHISI COATES: I can’t accept that your interest in a true democracy was destroyed by violence from your partner. I just can’t accept that. First of all, I think even in this rendering that we have here, I suspect that there are reasons for why that suicide bombing even happened.

'You' here refers to Israel. Coates is saying that Israelis must not be committed to peace because violence from Hamas derailed Israeli public support for a peace process. If this is true, why is it not also true for the Palestinians? This seems to me like both a double standard and terrorism apologetics.

You wrote: "...I think you calling Coates a polemicist was incredibly uncharitable…"

Coates himself acknowledges this. Here's a long excerpt from the transcript [2], keeping his comments in context:

EZRA KLEIN: Did you go around with anybody who would say, no, we’re doing the right thing here. Or even we’re not doing enough here.

TA-NEHISI COATES: No.

EZRA KLEIN: Why?

TA-NEHISI COATES: There are things in this world that I see that I just don’t want to hear the justification for. I just don’t think can be justified. I don’t want to hear — I don’t know what I can glean from a justification for — and I’m talking about in an American context — segregation.

I don’t know what necessarily I can glean from a justification for enslavement by hearing somebody like interviewing somebody and say, tell me why this is legal. Some things come down to, for me, just a moral decision. And I actually think journalists do this all the time. I think we all draw a line somewhere about what we feel is out of bounds and what we feel is beyond.

For me, I was willing to entertain probably a debate from people who were anti-occupation, but maybe not necessarily anti-Zionist. Maybe it would be classified as liberal Zionists even. All the way over to people who thought Zionism was a terrible idea and the worst thing that had ever happened. The justification for settlements was outside of my frame.

EZRA KLEIN: But that does wipe out all of Israeli society almost, right?

TA-NEHISI COATES: I was concerned with what I don’t know. And what I haven’t heard. And for me, Palestinian voices have been pushed so far out of the frame. Like that is the thing that is hard to access. And I think this is open for critique. But I made a conscious decision, frankly, in the language, you know what I mean?

Later in the interview, Coates returns to Klein's criticism:

COATES:... this was just a decision I made. OK, who am I not hearing from? Who have I not heard from?

And so that necessarily means marginalizing a portion of it.

Coates openly acknowledges that he decided consciously, deliberately, to ignore the parts he didn't want to hear in order to protect the narrative he wanted to focus on. He states that this is open for critique…which is what I'm offering. I haven't been uncharitable in any way. 

You wrote: "...and shows apathy to the point that him and Klein both agreed on: that Israel is an apartheid state." 

That's a third straw man[1]. Look again. How did my post start?

I agree with Coates and Klein both that the circumstances for Palestinians in the West Bank can be compared to apartheid. Israel within the green line can't be described that way, but the West Bank, in my opinion, can be described that way.

I think the West Bank settlements are indefensible. They are shameful and wrong. Israel could have protected its security without building settlements clearly meant to eventually annex the land into Israel. I have nothing but contempt and condemnation for them. 

Coates and Klein, however, also agreed about what would happen if Israel unilaterally pulled out of the West Bank as they did in Gaza in 2005. Again, here's the transcript:

KLEIN:...If we ever pull back, if we do what we did in Gaza, and allow this to be self-governed, an army will be raised, and what happened on 10/7 will be a small preview of what will be coming for us eventually.

That doesn’t make anything happening in the West Bank right. It doesn’t have any effect on the morality of it whatsoever. But it is the politics of Israel that somebody is going to have to deal with at some point or not. And then we’re just here. I’m not here to tell you I’ve come up with some answer. It’s just one of the things that has to sit in the pot.

TA-NEHISI COATES: Yeah, I don’t disagree with that at all. I don’t disagree with that at all.

Given this agreement between Coates and Klein that Israel pulling out of the West Bank unilaterally without enforceable security guarantees would result in disaster, what would you have Israel do? If it was up to me, I'd start with making water distribution fair in area C of the West Bank.

Now that I have defended my reasonable and supported criticisms of Coates from three straw man comments, I need to mention that the same category of error Coates gives us had a mirror image this weekend in Bill Maher.

BONUS GRIPE: Bill Maher does the same kind of thing as Coates, but in a mirror

Did you see this?

Set aside for a minute that Maher condescending to Chappell Roan and Roan's audience won't change any minds and set aside that Maher continues to be a living avatar for Peak Boomer Asshole Behavior - and what we're left with is a narrative about Israel/Palestine which is made to seem reasonable only by consciously, deliberately, dishonestly choosing to leave out utterly essential information. They're both writing for confirmation biases. There are only two differences between what Coates did and what Maher did:

1. Maher leaves out essential information about the Palestinian concerns and Palestinian realities while ignoring or downplaying Israeli failures…while Coates leaves out essential information about Israeli concerns and Israeli realities while ignoring or downplaying Palestinian failures. 

2. Coates at least ADMITS, when pressed, that he's doing this. Maher, smug prick that he is, does not. 

They're both wrong. It's assholes running the Israeli government, assholes running Hamas, assholes running the Palestinian Authority, and assholes running the Iranian government- and NONE of these parties has honestly sought peace for at least a couple decades. (Iran and Hamas have never sought peace.)

And with their deeply dishonest determination to serve their narratives by leaving out half the story, neither Coates nor Maher are helping elevate the conversation and fumble towards truth or resolution nearly as much as Ezra Klein does with consistent intellectual honesty.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/11/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-ta-nehisi-coates.html

[truthwars]

Jaleel White's Twisted Take on the "Reality of the Left"

Jaleel White, known for his role as Steve Urkel on Family Matters, recently made headlines with controversial political comments. In a recent interview, White claimed to expose the “reality of the left” and its alleged threats to society. His statements sparked debate and raised questions about his motives. A Scare Tactic: Jake Hurley and the Call for Violence White’s main argument centers on…

[deus-ex-mona]

look at these images that are seemingly unrelated to each other. what do you see?

[holyshit]

.

[stromuprisahat]

Leigh Bardugo: *finishes Demon in the Wood*

Leigh Bardugo: So this ☝️ is the villain. The Greatest Evil my world's ever seen. The Worst Enemy of Ravka!

Leigh Bardugo: And this *points at a straw figure* is the Hero!!!

[rarepairnation]

playing with fire (this scene contains denethor and faramir and a fruit and cheese plate. the conversation was going to happen anyway but the plate entered the scene because i was feeling bitchy and it is deliberately portrayed to be contrary to the common interpretation. its actually a lovely conversation. sometimes you can dislike your parent and have a perfectly normal cordial conversation with them. an emotional one, even, if most of your dislike actually stems from understanding them to a degree that makes both of you very very uncomfortable. however if someone subscribes to the common interpretation it may create the wrong vibe for the scene. thats not my problem though.)

[thisismenow3]

Semantics or genuine misunderstandings?

I keep feeling such… depression, I guess? Anger ain’t the right word, nor is sadness. It’s just an all encompassing defeat kind of feeling when I see someone defend their position on an important topic by pretending only the most egregious kind of idiotic arguments against their position are the other side.

The specific instance for this right now is seeing people act like anti-Zionism means anti Jew ignoring the multiple meanings of the word. And then do things such as act like the only way people could side with Palestinians (they usually just say Hamas and limit how often they say the name of the people group being oppressed… wonder why) is if no Israelis were harmed October 7 2023. Bru, some people are malicious idiots that think this way, but I and many people who don’t believe in reactionary group punishment (war crimes) don’t need to ignore the rape and murder and etc of Israelis on October 7 to know two wrongs don’t make a right.

And underneath it all is a failure to engage with the biggest and most salient point of the “side” they rail against; why do people in the West Bank deserve to have their homes taken over and themselves violently thrown out by Israeli settlers? Oh that’s already been happening for 75 years? Seems like you’re ignoring the real issue then. Hamas will always have recruits as long as the Palestinians are treated as sub humans who cannot have freedom of movement, cannot have freedom to keep their stuff or their lives. This applies to Gaza as well, but it’s curious that even with the two step of “they killed and raped civilians! So of course we must snipe grandmas in the streets and in mosques and churches while pillaging and raping in the rubble!” they can’t engage with the fact that they’ve tied their idea of their own and their group’s safety to the genocide of the outgroup. And that on top of that they misuse accusation of antisemitism to hide from this reality like some kind of American Christofascist would, or Russian propagandist, or Azeri nationalist.

But this reality levels their whole wordview, not just argument. They need the delusion of settlers stealing land and houses and soldiers sniping old women and children and denying food, clean water and healthcare to somehow being necessary to combat Hamas… cause otherwise you’d have to admit you are supporting a government that is trying to speed run the American genocide of native Americans. We, Americans, didn’t have to fully regime change or do anything to Iraq to fight terrorism or to keep ourselves safe. More people should’ve listened to how this was reactionary “spill more of their blood to salve our wounded pride and the hearts of those who died in the towers!!!!!!!!” bullshit, but they didn’t. What Israel did and does to Palestinians before October 7 and since makes all of the Levant less safe. Just like with counter terrorism, war and war crimes actually make the problem worse and soft power non military solutions are the actual defenses

[insane-control-room]

using the adl as a source for jewish voices is fucking INSANE just read about their pro-israel plants. they literally view every anti-zionist as inherently antisemitic and as a jew im sick of hearing about them

in what way is anti-zionism not anti-semitism? anti-zionism literally means "does not support the jewish people having a right to land, specifically the land that they are historically from". sounds like erasure + colonialism to me lmao

also dont give me the "as a jew" argument unless its relevant. i'm a jew too. big deal. i dont know of any non-jewish organizations doing anything about anti-semitism. not one. do you?

where are your parents from? their parents? their parents' parents? were they kicked out of their homes, did they have their savings and land seized, were they told "go back to palestine"? were your family members murdered just for being jewish, and the deaths covered up, excused, celebrated? mine were.

so shut up and sit down until you stop being a coward, and denying your own damn right to exist. don't come crying to me when someone tells you that you deserve to die because of a flawed government that you dont support.

(im gonna start putting argument fallacies where i see them in anon messages bc i need to remind myself im talking to a wall, haha. it is great for learning how to spot these kinds of things and how to refute them :). )

[wheelercurse]

I know it’s because we have said everything that has to be said about byler… but it’s funny reading a post with a new proof that makes me go what are you talking about???

[kaleb-is-definitely-sane]

Straw man fallacy.

Pro Life is pro-life not anti-abortion. Anti-aborters oppose abortion because it takes the life of innocents. Pro-lifers oppose abortion because it takes the life of a human being. This also applies to capital punishment, genocide, prevention of basic human necessities, police brutality, etc, etc, etc, etc. I believe in imago dei. I believe in the value of human life. I believe murder is murder. I am pro-life.

when the pro lifer screams at you that abortion is murder, hit em with "the state kills more people than any one woman ever could, but you don't care about that."

death penalty in several states, denial of life saving and preventative healthcare, paywalling fucking insulin, poverty, disease, police brutality, and the assassination of Boeing whistleblowers as Boeing planes fall apart.

Palestine.

The average American is already dripping with the blood of others.

what's a little more

[lovechoerrymagic]

this is gonna sound extremely pretentious but since taking a whole class on how Logic works and then a whole different class on how to construct logical arguments and avoid fallacies i’ve noticed how most people on the internet are just. really bad at arguing

[dragon-zena]

Every day one of you reblogs a post where someone gets mad at a person that they made up. And I have to see it and then not say anything about it bc it's technically not that big of a deal

[lovebecomeshim]

Gosh sometimes I see people on this site say things on behalf of Christians pertaining to what we believe that are just so utterly wrong and contrary to the Bible and get deeply exhausted

[streetwiseangel]

like for all means give warnings for texts and authors that are harmful and be prepared to outright reject certain sentiments and arguments, but telling people that they are spreading “terf rhetoric” every time anyone references a dworkin text… yikes. talk about coercive persuasion.

[kaapstadmk]

I want to pull something out, here: the graphs are misleading.

They are titled "How many unarmed black men were killed in [year]", but the data in the footer gives the number who were fatally shot.

So, the data quoted does not match the question asked. After all, there are more ways to kill someone than just shooting them. This serves to create and perpetuate a narrative that liberals are crazy or overreacting.

Additionally, when using anecdotes regarding the perception of threat necessitating lethal response, we should be diligent to also look at how similar behaviors are responded to when coming from different demographics.

Lastly, this whole post is an example of straw-manning. Rather than address the entirety of what BLM is looking to address (police violence in general, unequal policing, historic/systematic oppression, etc), they're taking a singular aspect, reframing the focus onto that one tidbit, presenting it as the whole motivation behind the movement, and then using it to say the entire movement is a sham.

Link: How Informed are Americans about Race and Policing? (skeptic.com)

==

FYI, 2019 survey.

Difference between 2019 and 2021:

Note: "unarmed" does not mean "not dangerous."

https://boghossian.substack.com/p/wokeness-public-safety-blm-and-antifa

According to the Washington Post’s comprehensive database of police killings, police shot and killed 54 unarmed people in 2019, 26 were listed as white, 12 black, 11 Hispanic, and 5 “other.”

It’s also important to note that the majority of the twelve shot were actively trying to hurt or kill the officer. For example, in at least two of the twelve cases involving black men, the perpetrators were killed while trying to run over an officer with a car. In another, an individual took and used the officer’s taser on him. In another, a female officer was being physically beaten by a suspect when she fired. All those cases were classified as “unarmed.”

“Unarmed” never means “not deadly.” There is always a gun involved—the officer’s. In many encounters, the suspect is fighting to get ahold of it. In the Ferguson case, it was claimed that Michael Brown had his hands up when Officer Darren Wilson shot him, in cold blood, in the middle of the street. Upon investigation, the forensic evidence as well as a half-dozen black witnesses confirmed Officer Wilson’s account. Michael Brown tried to take Officer Wilson’s gun and was charging at him when shot. The “Hands up, don’t shoot!’ slogan was a lie.

Actual unarmed, unjustified killings are extremely rare; in the low single digits.

https://boghossian.substack.com/p/race-homicide-and-data

In reality, when you remove those cases from the data, you're left with one or two. One or two cases every year, out of a country of 350 million some odd people. One or two cases. That's what Black Lives Matter is focusing on. They have things to say about just about everything except the 7000 to 8000 homicides per year of young black Americans.

[mywitchyblog]

Debunking anti-Aging Rethoric (Again)

Thanks @lizzy4president for this post, and I will debunk it accordingly. It seems that these cultists/Shiftokers don’t know shit about shifting or how it works. No matter how much theoretical knowledge you have about shifting, there are things you will never know unless you have shifted yourself—and I mean full-on shifts, not minishifts. That said, I will debunk this:

My age Changing Post :

My Masterlist :

So, let’s talk about the whole “aging down is weird because your consciousness retains your current age” nonsense that these people keep pushing. First off, this argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how reality shifting works. When you shift to a different age in your Desired Reality (DR), you're not just playing dress-up or pretending to be younger—you become that age in every sense of the word.

Immersive Experience: The Reality of Aging Down

In your DR, you don’t just take on a younger appearance while keeping the maturity of your Original Reality (OR) self. No, it’s way deeper than that. Your entire cognitive and emotional framework adapts to the age you’ve shifted to. If you script yourself as a 14-year-old, you don’t walk around with the mindset of a 30-year-old stuck in a teenager’s body. You fully embody the mindset, emotions, and maturity of a 14-year-old. This isn’t just about physical changes—your brain, your thoughts, and your emotional responses align with that younger age.

Neuroscience backs this up too. Maturity is tied to the development of specific brain regions, like the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for things like decision-making and impulse control. When you shift, your consciousness adapts to the brain development appropriate for that age in your DR. You’re not lugging your OR brain around; instead, you’re operating with the cognitive equipment that matches your DR age. This means that in your DR, you’re not a 30-year-old thinking like a 14-year-old—you’re truly 14 with the maturity that comes with that age​.

Debunking the Consciousness Retention Myth

Now, some folks seem to think that when you shift to a younger age, you somehow retain your OR “adult consciousness.” This is pure bullshit. When you shift, your consciousness isn’t this fixed, immovable thing that drags your OR mentality into your DR. It’s adaptable and fluid. If you script or intend to be a teenager, your consciousness adjusts to that reality—period. There’s no “adult awareness” hanging around in the background. Your thoughts, decisions, and reactions all align with your DR age​.

The Fallacies Behind Anti-Aging Rhetoric

Let’s get into the nitty-gritty of why these anti-aging arguments are straight-up flawed. The rhetoric used against aging down is packed with logical fallacies that just don’t hold up when you actually understand shifting.

Straw Man Fallacy: This is when someone misrepresents an argument to make it easier to attack. Anti-aging down critics love to claim that anyone who shifts to a younger age is doing it for creepy, inappropriate reasons. They simplify the complexity of shifting into a caricature, which makes it easier for them to criticize. But that’s not how it works. Shifters age down for countless reasons—healing, exploration, nostalgia—and it’s not all about sexual or romantic intentions​.

Hasty Generalization: This fallacy happens when someone takes a limited number of cases and makes a broad, sweeping statement. Anti-aging rhetoric often assumes that if one person ages down for inappropriate reasons, then everyone who ages down must be doing the same. This ignores the vast majority of shifters who age down for completely innocent and personal reasons. Thesehoes need to stop making assumptions based on a few bad apples and recognize the diversity of experiences in the shifting community​.

False Equivalence: Here’s a big one. Critics often equate shifting to a younger age with being an adult in a child’s body in the OR, implying that it’s somehow the same as being predatory or inappropriate in the OR. This is a total false equivalence. When you shift, you fully become that younger self—your consciousness, maturity, and experiences align with that age in the DR. It’s not even remotely comparable to being an adult trying to live as a child in the OR​.

Slippery Slope: This fallacy suggests that if you allow one thing to happen (like aging down), it will inevitably lead to something much worse. Anti-aging critics often argue that allowing or accepting aging down will lead to more predatory behavior or normalize inappropriate desires or even the presence of pedophiles in the Shifting Community. But there’s no evidence to back this up. Aging down is about fully embracing and experiencing life at a different age, not about some slippery slope into immoral behavior​.

Addressing the Ethical Concerns

A lot of people throw around ethical concerns like they’re confetti, especially when it comes to aging down. They’re quick to scream, “But it’s creepy!” without understanding the actual reasons why someone might want to age down. Spoiler: it’s not always about romance or sex and in some cases it s even acceptable because you dont know why they do the things that they do what if someone got an traumatic event like SA in highschool and wish to replace it with a healthy moment ? Or someone got chated on and wished to see how things wouldve been ? Or someone was going to have an aooportunity like that but has missed out on it ? If someone yearns for the teenage romance eveyone and their mother in films movies and TV series love to push ? This is not shifting for predatory reasons far from it.

For many shifters, aging down is about healing or exploring stages of life they didn’t get to fully experience in their OR. It could be about reliving a simpler time, overcoming past traumas, or just enjoying the freedom and innocence that comes with being younger. It’s a deeply personal process, and it’s not inherently sexual or predatory​.

Infinite Realities and Subjective Morals

Let’s not forget that shifting involves infinite realities, each with its own set of rules and morals. What might be seen as inappropriate in one reality could be completely normal in another. This idea that OR morals are the blueprint for every DR is just plain wrong. If you’re aging down in your DR, it’s because that reality’s context allows it, and there’s nothing inherently weird or wrong about that. It’s time to stop judging DR experiences by OR standards​.

Conclusion: Embrace the Full Experience

In conclusion, aging down isn’t weird, predatory, or inappropriate. When you shift, you become that age completely—mentally, emotionally, and cognitively. The arguments against this practice are based on misunderstandings, fallacies, and a lack of real shifting experience. Shifting is about exploring and fully immersing yourself in another reality, and that includes becoming the age you choose to shift to. So, the next time someone tells you that aging down is weird, just remember: they don’t know what they’re talking about, and you’re the one who truly understands the depth of the shifting experience.