Fallacies?

Trump has you guys literally grading evil on a curve. If Trump locked a woman in a basement, forced her to have his babies, and then burned the house down with her in it to hide the evidence, you'd say, ‘At least he’s not a cannibal because he didn’t eat the body.’ If you’re using Hitler as your benchmark for fascism, then you either don’t know what fascism is or you simply don’t care.

 

By your logic, are we now redefining murder based on Stephen Paddock, who killed 58 people in the Las Vegas massacre? Should we say Charles Manson wasn't really that bad because he never pulled the trigger himself? Was Jeffrey Dahmer just an overzealous dinner host? Maybe Ted Kaczynski was just passionate about simplifying modern life?

 

Evil doesn’t need to reach Hitler-level atrocities to be evil. Fascism doesn’t need swastikas and gas chambers to be fascism. The fact that your defense of Trump hinges on ‘he hasn’t reached full-blown genocide yet’ proves just how low you’ve set the bar—and how comfortable you are living beneath it.

The passage leverages several rhetorical devices and logical fallacies:

1. **Straw Man Fallacy**: The argument sets up an exaggerated version of the opposing view to argue against. It presumes the audience is defending Donald Trump by claiming he isn't as bad as historically horrific figures, which may not represent the actual stance of the audience.

2. **Slippery Slope**: The argument starts with a hypothetically extreme action (locking a woman in a basement) to highlight the absurdity of a claimed defense, suggesting that any defense of lesser actions could lead to excusing increasingly poor behavior.

3. **False Analogy**: By comparing Trump to figures like Hitler or murderers like Stephen Paddock, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Ted Kaczynski, it suggests these situations are directly comparable in a meaningful way, which might not be true.

4. **Red Herring**: The passage shifts focus from the direct actions or policies to extreme hypothetical scenarios and historical analogies, diverting attention from specific topics of discussion or criticism about Trump's actual actions or policies.

5. **Hyperbole**: The examples provided are exaggerated to an extreme degree for emphasis, aiming to shock or provoke rather than drive a factual argument.

The argument reveals frustration with what the author perceives to be inadequate moral standards or defenses of actions taken by Trump. However, it employs logical fallacies and emotionally charged language, which could impede effective reasoning or actual engagement with differing perspectives.