.png){kind=small}
Bad faith arguments & logical fallacies
Defending billionaire and corporate interests to the rest of the public is becoming harder when so many in society are feeling the impact of the wealth being hoovered up.
Because facts do not back up arguments, apologists cannot debate in good faith and so employ tactics to misrepresent and distract from the topic at hand.
It’s an effective technique, as it can be hard to spot. As these apologists are experts in these tactics, it can also be difficult to argue back. Below we’ll go into more details about the tactics they make, and give some examples, which will make them easier to look out for.
Attacking the opposition argument
Caricature the opposition argument (strawman)
A weak argument is easier to defeat than a strong argument. Rather than having a strong argument of their own it is easier to frame the opposing side as weak, petty or ridiculous.
Therefore apologists will create a caricature of the opposition's argument, usually a more extreme point, rather than the actual point being made, turning it into a “strawman”.
It is misrepresenting facts and others’ viewpoints to bolster their own arguments.
Liz Truss saying “Profit is not evil” is a strawman, because she is putting forward the argument that her critics don't want anyone making money. Nobody says profit evil, the objection is profiteering, greed at the expense of people who can’t afford their own basic human needs.
The trailer for Piers Morgan’s new show on Rupert Murdoch owned TalkTV. Here a green juice drinking producer is telling Piers Morgan he’s saying is offensive. It is supposed to represent the “woke” culture Piers Morgan is so against, but bears no resemblance to reality.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak uses the strawman tactic when challenged in an interview on the hypocrisy that he travelled to Scotland to make a "green announcement" by private jet, which are far more damaging to the environment than commercial flights. Sunak cannot defend this, so obscures the conversation by claiming that the interviewer wants to ban all flights and stop people from going on holiday. Sunak also derails the conversation, by talking over the interviewer, which we'll discuss later.
Derail and distract
It is possible to derail a discussion by giving facts or statistics that while may be true, but do not bear relevance to the argument currently being made. Using facts out of context.
A Government Minister asked to mention a single benefit to Brexit, doesn’t answer the question, just goes on a rant about other stuff which seems related but isn’t.
If you don’t like the way a conversation is going, throw out a distraction and completely change the conversation. A favourite of former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, referring to it as a “dead cat”
You’d have to wonder if this was a dead cat. Boris Johnson says he likes to make and paint buses to relax in an interview during his campaign to become Conservative party leader, and Prime Minister. When we were all talking about, we weren’t talking about his awful track record as leader, his lies and his numerous personal failings.
Another derailment tactic is making arguments on a hypothetical basis, rather than the reality we sit in.
The final option, if all other derailment fails, particularly in debate setting, is to shut it down completely. Do anything to lower the debate. If you cannot win the debate, the next best thing is to not lose by not allowing the other side to be heard. Literally or figuratively.
The below interview with Rishi Sunak has already been used as an example of a strawman, but is also an example of a debate being derailed through interruption. Sunak knows his strawman argument, that the interviewer "wants to ban all flights", can be easily countered. But given the interview has a strict time limit, Sunak knows if he just keeps talking over the interviewer, the public cannot hear the legitimate point being made.
Attacking the person making the point and not the point itself
Trying to pick apart the individual rather than the argument itself.
This video shows Nigel Farage criticising the Just Stop Oil protesters, He describes them as “Upper middle class spoiled brats…with names like Indigo” attacking them personally rather than engaging with the arguments they’re making. (Also the use of cherry picked data, which is also discussed later)
Greta Thunberg, a climate activist, is constantly on the receiving end of vicious personal attacks for standing up for the future of the planet.
Apologists also like to reject an argument because the person advancing it fails to practise what they preach.
This Insulate Britain activist was pulled apart on TV because his own home is not insulated. This has no bearing on his point, but derailed the argument. Just because he could not afford to insulate his own home, does not mean that the substance of his argument, that well insulated homes are essential and the responsibility of this should fall with the government, is any less valid.
The media, who, consist largely of over privileged journalists backed by their billionaire oligarch media owners often use personal attacks to gatekeep who is allowed an opinion.
​
For example, they criticise champagne socialists who stand up for working people’s rights who want to make life better for the majority. Nobody criticises the literal aristocracy for punching down on the working class and want to punish them at every opportunity, or blame them for their lower financial status for a lack of ingenuity or work ethic.
Footballers, that fight for social justice, are criticised for not sticking to the day job. They are also, largely formerly working class and often from ethnic minorities. They are using their voice to stand up for those they grew up around, and who they used to be. Therefore they are the type of rich people the establishment don’t like: those not part of the revolving door, therefore they should know their place.
Slippery slope
Taking a point beyond its logical conclusion and arguing wih that. Suggesting the consequence of one decision will lead to a ludicrous or farcical outcome without any evidence to back it up.
​
This is an argument against progress. People who use this tactic yearn for things to be like “the good old days” but never specify which point in time things were perfect. At what point have we had enough progress?
Those who fight for “traditional marriage”, for example, forget traditions of the past involved a transaction for a young woman, often still a girl, between her father and a much older potential husband.
​
Take the below example of a slippery slope fallacy, that allowing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy, or pedophilia.
Generalisation
Taking the qualities or actions of an individual, and painting them as representing an entire group. Taking anecdotal evidence and treating it as data which is applicable more broadly.
Examples include: stating all immigrants are economic migrants or criminals as a justification for the treatment of all refugees or asylum seekers, or that everyone on benefits are workshy therefore they don’t deserve to be treated humanely.
However, this only occurs when it suits apologists. People cite the crime rate with black people, which is not to do with racist policing and rather it's because ethnic minorities are inherently more criminal. They use their ignorance to justify the treatment of minorities. Why not look at other crimes, tax evasion, embezzlement, fraud, which are caused by white people normally? Does that mean that all white people should be treated with suspicion when they are high up on a company or have positions of power?
Belitting the experiences of the complainer
Just because something isn't happening to you, doesn't mean that it'sn ot happening.
​
According to status quo apologists, the formerly oppressed have never had it so good, so they stop complaining. Women have seemingly smashed through numerous glass ceilings, black and ethnic minorities enjoy more civil freedoms than ever, the poor apparently all have widescreen TVs. The establishment has conceded a tiny bit- what more do you want? These issues have all been solved. Stop complaining. This manipulates people into thinking those who champion progress are ungrateful and unreasonable.
Being deliberately stupid
Comparing something that is happening under a sitting/current government and saying “this is what life would be like under [insert rival here]”
Underplaying support for or trivialising an issue
Making a problem seem less bad than it is when it is convenient to the argument.
Glasgow’s climate demonstration on 5th November 2021 attracted tens of thousands of people.
​
Strengthening your own arguments
Appeals to emotion
When you do not have facts on your side, a common manipulation and influencing tactic is to appeal to emotion. Rather than misrepresenting facts or figures, or undermining those making arguments, they take a more human approach. Appealing to the heart rather than the head.
“I’m just a concerned parent" trope
Cherry picking data or evidence
Taking isolated examples to prove a point or fit a presumption. Attention will only focus on data that helps the argument, and everything else will be disregarded, even if it challenges the original point.
Those making an argument may also fixate on a specific point or semantics to waste time in a debate, or derail from the substance of the discussion.
Here Andrew Neil questioning Mick Lynch on the salaries of train drivers, implying greed. Keeps coming back to drivers, despite Lynch’s best efforts to bring the debate back to other professions involved in the dispute- the pay and conditions of the lowest paid. There is a focus on salary, and not the other attacks on working conditions that rail strikers are fighting for. Also note Neil's neglect to mention the bonuses or salaries of the bosses of rail companies. Greed on their part foes not fit Neil's narrative.
Another example of cherry picked data is the argument that “China are the biggest polluters in the world”. This fails to acknowledge they also have the biggest population, so of course use more resources. When you look more closely at the statistics, we can see who the real worst polluters are by head of population, which is the more useful statistic.
Overwhelming the debate with false or biased information
Arguing a point by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time. This prevents an opponent from fighting each point in real time. This is very effective in campaign speeches, or campaign videos, because there is no opportunity for a rebuttal.
​
Julia Hartley Brewer lying about the contents of a major UN climate report on BBC Question Time. These claims were never corrected by the BBC.
Use of dodgy "experts"
Picking and choosing “experts” that may not be credible, their expertise exaggerated or overstated, or not relevant to the topic being argued.
Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor, is approached for his opinion on everything. This includes on climate change, which he is woefully unqualified to discuss and therefore damages the debate with ill-informed nonsense.
​
Pay attention when these people use fancy words and phrases to bamboozle you. It's a manipulation tactic which makes them appear more authoritative and intelligent. You'll then suspend your own disbelief because you assume the "smarter person" is right, or you'll be afraid to ask question for fear of looking stupid.
​
Never be afraid to question a dodgy expert on a point for clarification. Chances are they don't know what they're talking about either. ​
Overplaying support for an issue
Making issues seem divisive that actually aren’t. For example, abortion in America, or nationalising utilities in the UK. These policies are painted as “difficult”, and therefore off the debate table, because the elites have a vested interest in them not happening.
If they are left alone because we are told that they are controversial, then the change we want doesn’t happen. But we are more accepting of it as a way of keeping the peace.
Implant doubt in people's mind
You don’t need to convince people of your argument, you just need to plant doubt in their head.
For example, the anti vaccination movement doesn’t need people to think vaccinations are evil, just doubt it enough that they don’t get one.
​
The corporate interests that make money from fossil fuels don't need us all to be climate change deniers, but just doubtful enough that the majority don't call for drastic transformation to the way the world is run.
False equivalence
Taking one small example against the general trend, and try and make out it is the norm or the prevailing view of a group of people you are fighting against.
Example: For example the #metoo movement is unfair because women sometimes make men feel sexually uncomfortable too. This not only neglects the number inequity, but also disregards the power imbalance of men over women.
False balance
Representing minority dissenting views as equal to majority view
Taking topics that generally have consensus, like climate change among experts. But then have one pro view and one anti view in a media segment.
Tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth
Convincing people to not believe their eyes and ears, everything that people tell you the mainstream media is all lies. This tactic is so dangerous because there is psychological evidence of its weight and importance of numbing people to what the truth actually is.
The most classic example of this is “fake news” and Donald Trump. He claims that all reporting on their behaviour is wrong or made up. Whether it’s his assertion that the 2020 US election was rigged, or that his COVID response in the US was anything other than catastrophic.
Boris Johnson, famous for his lying, is a fan of this tactic. His claim that during his tenure “we got the big calls right” or “we delivered on every one of our promises” are complete lies- he broke 13 manifesto promises. His handling of COVID, and the thousands of unnecessary deaths, were a result of getting most of the “big calls” wrong.
​
The lie that asylum seekers must lodge their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive at. Many people think this is true, because it is repeated so often in the media and by politicians.
​
