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!
Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
Take the Online Course