Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!
|
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
|
|||
answered on Friday, Jul 26, 2024 02:40:14 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|
|
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. |
answered on Friday, Jul 26, 2024 12:22:43 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|