Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)
Traitorous Critic Fallacy
ergo decedo
Description: Responding to criticism by attacking a person's perceived favorability to an out-group or dislike to the in-group as the underlying reason for the criticism rather than addressing the criticism itself, and suggesting that they stay away from the issue and/or leave the in-group. This is usually done by saying something such as, "Well, if you don't like it, then get out!"
Logical Form:
Person 1 offers criticism against group 1.
Person 2 responds to the criticism by disingenuously asking them why they don't leave group 1.
Example #1:
Gertrude: I am tired of having to fill out these forms all day. Can't we find a more efficient system?
Cindy-Lou: If you're not happy with the way we do things, we can find someone who is!
Explanation: Cindy-Lou did not address the concern, but essentially threatened Gertrude to shut up or lose her job. This example might also be seen as appeal to force .
Example #2:
Steve: In Sweden, college is free for citizens. How come we can't do that here?
Ed: If you like Sweden so much, move there. The USA would be glad to be rid of your liberal ass!
Explanation: Besides begging the question (Steve did not say he liked Sweden), Ed refused to address the question asked and deflected with a disingenuous question on why Steve does not move to Sweden.
Exception: Repeated expressions of favoritism for the out-group and dislike of the in-group could justify a why-don't-you-join-the-out-group type of response.
Tip: Remember the old saying about the grass being greener on the other side.
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.
