Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)
Description: Asserting that those who disagree with you must be wrong and not thinking straight, primarily based on the fact that they are the opposition.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is asserting X.
Person 1 is the opposition.
Therefore, X must be wrong.
Example #1:
President Trump said that he was proud of the children who participated in this year's Special Olympics. Those kids are a bunch of losers.
Explanation: This is an extreme example of a very real example that we have all seen since around early 2016. Those who passionately hate Trump, reflexively disagree with everything he says and does, associating the truth of his statement with the feelings they have for him. This is not reasonable thinking.
Example #2:
The Democrats support more aggressive gun control laws. Can you believe they want to deny repeat offenders and those on the terrorist watch list their rights?
Explanation: Very often we see support for reasonable policies rejected based on the party that proposes such policies. We know this because research has been done in this area.
Exception: There might be a situation where your opposition must say things that are demonstrably wrong, or they wouldn’t be your opposition. For example,
Only those who disagree with X are my opposition.
X is demonstrably right.
Bill is my opposition.
Therefore, Bill is wrong.
It seems strange to suggest that because Bill is my opposition, he is wrong, but this is necessarily true if we hold that “Only those who disagree with X are my opposition” and “X is demonstrably right.” This wouldn’t make logical sense if we didn’t set the conditions so that anyone belonging to the group “opposition” would be wrong.
Tip: Rejecting information from an opponent known to lie, might be a reasonable heuristic, but it is not a good critical thinking technique.
References:
This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.
Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!
Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.
This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
