Logical Fallacies on the Left

Just out of curiosity, what are some logical fallacies someone can point out to me that are usually used by members of the left wing of the American political spectrum? Liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, etc. Also why these fallacious arguments are problematic. 

I wrote this article a while back outlining what I saw as common fallacies within the Social Justice Movement (mostly the political left). https://www.hostingauthors.com/posts/bobennett/top_five_logical_fallacies_in_the_social_justice_movement.html

 

Anecdotally, left-wingers are more likely to use the moralistic fallacy (X ought not to be true, therefore it isn't) while right-wingers are more likely to use the naturalistic fallacy (X is true, therefore it ought to be). This is my experience and doesn't necessary match that of other people.

In general though, logical fallacies are used by everyone in political discussion. The difference would be the content of these fallacious arguments. For instance, cherry-picking is common on both sides, though left- and right-wingers will cherry-pick different things. In a US context, perhaps the left (being more critical of gun ownership) will highlight data showing gun-related homicides while the right (being more supportive of gun ownership) will highlight data on defensive gun use.

It's the same fallacy in both cases, but the context varies.

Certainly, it's important to recognize that logical fallacies can be found across all political affiliations, including the left wing of the American political spectrum. Examining these fallacies helps to foster better reasoning and more constructive dialogue. Here are some logical fallacies that can be observed and why they are problematic:

1. **Straw Man Fallacy**:
- **Description**: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.
- **Example**: "Conservatives don't care about the environment at all; they just want to pollute the earth for profit."
- **Why Problematic**: This kind of argument distorts the opponent's actual stance, thereby avoiding engagement with the real issues and arguments.

2. **Ad Hominem**:
- **Description**: Attacking the person rather than addressing the argument they are making.
- **Example**: "You can’t trust what they’re saying about economic policies, they’re just a billionaire who wants to stay rich."
- **Why Problematic**: It shifts the debate away from substantive issues to personal attacks, which does not contribute to resolving the actual argument.

3. **Appeal to Emotion (Pathos)**:
- **Description**: Using emotional responses in place of valid or logical arguments.
- **Example**: "If you don’t support universal healthcare, you don't care about people suffering unnecessarily."
- **Why Problematic**: While emotion is important, decisions need to be based on logical reasoning and empirical evidence to ensure they are sound and effective.

4. **False Dilemma (Black-and-White Thinking)**:
- **Description**: Presenting only two options when more exist.
- **Example**: "You either support our progressive policies, or you are against progress altogether."
- **Why Problematic**: This oversimplifies complex situations and reduces the possibility of exploring multiple solutions or middle grounds.

5. **Hasty Generalization**:
- **Description**: Making a broad statement based on a small sample.
- **Example**: "We must defund all police departments because a few officers were guilty of misconduct."
- **Why Problematic**: It leads to inappropriate generalizations that do not accurately represent the whole, and can lead to misguided policies.

6. **Appeal to Authority**:
- **Description**: Claiming something is true because an authority or expert said it, without examining the argument or evidence.
- **Example**: "We should adopt these economic policies because a famous economist supports them."
- **Why Problematic**: Just because someone is an expert does not mean their claims are above scrutiny. Each argument should be evaluated on its own merits.

7. **Confirmation Bias**:
- **Description**: Favoring information that confirms preexisting beliefs and disregarding information that challenges them.
- **Example**: Only reading and sharing news articles that support progressive viewpoints.
- **Why Problematic**: It creates an echo chamber that reinforces existing beliefs and prevents critical evaluation of different perspectives, thereby inhibiting balanced decision-making.

These fallacies are problematic because they undermine rational discourse, distort the truth, and can lead to poor decision-making. Recognizing and avoiding these fallacies can lead to more thoughtful, respectful, and effective discussions on political and social issues.