The Rise of Logistical Fallacies
A different look at the political violence that plagues our society
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the rising violence in response to political debate. I explained my theories for this rise, saying this in the article The Rise of Political Violence:
Americans today are so divided on issues ranging from abortion, to healthcare, to COVID, to immigration, and to climate change that it is impossible not to say America is incredibly divided. Couple that with a stark difference in media usage, and how partisan media is these days, it is also impossible to say that people don’t live in echo chambers with agreeing ideas.1
But it isn’t just restricted to public outrage. In the realm of debate in our society, new problems have arrived.
The problems themselves stem from the main three fallacies: the ad hominem fallacy, the slippery slope, and the strawman. According to the Texas State Department of Phycology, the ad hominem fallacy is defined as “instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.”2. This fallacy is perhaps the most prevalent in our political system, as all to often one is called racist for opposing or supporting certain racial policies, from whatever side of the issue they are on. For an example, let's take a debate between Joe and Tom. Joe says we need to reduce taxes for everyone, but Joe is also wealthy. Tom attacks him by saying that he just wants to pay lower taxes because hes rich and wants to keep his money, and hes a selfish jerk. That's a textbook example of the ad hominem. The ad hominem is so dangerous itself because of the personal attack. When someone attacks you for your beliefs in the public sphere, then you either change your views because of it or you silence yourself, both hurt our country. Ad hominem fallacies tend to be used when someone doesn’t have a rebuttal to use, so keep that in mind.
The second of the three main fallacies is the slippery slope. According to the Texas State Department of Phycology, the slippery slope is when “a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends”3. This is common in commercials, and is sometimes even used for comedic effect, however it is too often used in mainstream politics, especially as it relates to conspiracy theories, like the election rigging that former president Donald Trump pushed so often when he constantly said that one little potential mistake in a ballot count that has no effect on the vote meant there was widespread fraud. But maybe the most well known example of the slippery slope fallacy is from the ‘Roadside Ditch’ commercial from DirectTV. The commercial claims that when you are put on hold by the cable company, you get mad, which leads to you getting in an accident, and when your in an accident you get an eye patch, which leads to people wanting to know how tough you are and you waking up in a roadside ditch4. This is an obvious and comedic example of the slippery slope fallacy, but it is also a perfect example of how it is widespread in American culture.
The final of the main three fallacies is the strawman. According to the Texas State Department of Phycology, the fallacy occurs when “ in attempting to refute another person's argument, you address only a weak or distorted version of it.5” And perhaps this is the most difficult to spot as we see the strawman all to often today, specifically in the realm of politics. Let's take one final example: Immigration. A common rebuttal against arguments that we should lock down our borders and deport any and all illegal immigrants is the it's too hard to legally immigrate to the country argument. However, it is quite common for people who wish for the country to be tougher on illegal immigration to also advocate for it to be easier to get into our country legally, and spend money to reduce wait times for asylum and entry claims. But the strawman is when the rebutter completely ignores the make it easier to legally immigrate aspect of the argument. This type of fallacy is sadly all to common in our discourse, and we need to fix it as a society.
But where do we see this problem? The answer is complicated. Where we would typically see discussions about politics take place at the dinner table between families, at the coffee shop café or restaurant, and when people see each other at the grocery store. However, the COVID-19 pandemic changed all that. No longer were we going out to eat with friends or eating over at each others houses. That meant a shift in the location of national political discussion happened. Instead of in person discussion between friends, we now see mainstream political discussion take place on social media. Instead of the cafe or coffee shop, political discussion now takes place on Twitter or Facebook.
As a result of this shift, people have become more hostile in their discussion. Because of the anonymity one gets online, they don’t have to deal with any consequences for saying things they honestly shouldn’t. This includes using fallacies in debate, and the sad thing about fallacies is how they are so convincing. This leads to polarization and even more incivility in our discourse, and the snowball effect just won’t stop.
However, people have taken notice. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have taken measures to slow down these fallacies and misinformation in general on their platforms. Perhaps self-regulation by Social Media Giants will solve the problem we see.
But how do we fix these problems on a more societal level? It takes times for new rules and standards to be put in place on social media and laws to be passed by Congress. But what we can do instead ourselves is to quit committing fallacies altogether. When refuting an argument, first think it out and make sure your rebuttal isn’t fallacious. Keep your cool while debating so you can make these decisions on what is right and not right to do. And when you are the victim of a fallacy, call it out for what it is. When you don’t respond to a fallacious argument, the perpetrator thinks they have won. And when you get emotional and strike back in the same manner, then you wrongfully stoop to their level. Fallacious arguments are quickly rising in our nation, and the polarization they cause can divide our country and rip it apart. And with all of the things in the world right now, that is the last thing we need.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed please consider subscribing and spread the word to see more content from me. If you would like to check out some of my other works, check out my initial piece on this topic, The Fall of Civil Protest. Or an overview and my thoughts on the FBI raid on President Trump. Thank you once again for reading, and have a great rest of your day.
McMillen, Kenny. n.d. “The Rise of Political Violence.” Kennymcmillen.substack.com. Accessed August 11, 2022. https://kennymcmillen.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-political-violence.
Texas State University Department of Philosophy Ad Hominem, https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
Texas State University Department of Psychology Slippery Slope https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html
Pleacher, David Direct TV ads (Proofs), https://www.pleacher.com/mp/mhumor/directtv.html
Texas State University Department of Psychology Straw Person https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Straw-Person.html
This is a really smart article, Kenny. I am proud of your ability to not only understand what a fallacy is, but also your ability to point them out.