Fun
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

On Misapplied Truisms

Once you notice this in debate, you can never unnotice it again and it's unfortunately become a very common tactic in political discourse.

A misapplied truism is when someone says something completely self-evidently true that appears to be a response to someone else's argument but actually isn't.

A blatant example of this is when people say 'All lives matter,' in response to BLM. It's a truism because nobody can argue that all lives don't matter but the point here is that nobody has argued that all lives don't matter. BLM supporters argue that black lives matter too, not that white lives don't matter. As a misapplied truism, 'all lives matter,' pretends otherwise.

If you can't deal with your opponent's argument as it stands, a misapplied truism allows you to switch the point of contention onto something else by making your opponent's argument appear as something that it's not. It's a kind of straw-manning.

Sorry, but I am going to go there because this relates to Israel/Palestine. A lot.

"Israel has the right to defend itself." Nobody could disagree with a country wanting to defend itself. The real point of contention is whether Israel has the right to attack a city and kill 8,000 civilians (so far).

"Hamas and Netanyahu have both done bad things." Few disagree. Some on the Trumpian right like Netanyahu but almost literally nobody on the left actually supports Hamas. Defending the lives of Palestinian civilians implies no ideological support for Hamas at all, though there are great attempts to pretend otherwise.

Often people who use this technique are not even aware of it. It tells the truth in its own terms, but those terms are a lie.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
I agree with your premise. I believe Israel has the right to defend itself, and I condemn Hamas' actions. I dislike Netanyahu and believe he is bad for Israel. I realize most Palestinians in Gaza do not support Hamas and will end up as collateral damage. I believe in a stable two-state solution. But I get attacked from both the left and the right by people who use their "truisms" as all-encompassing.
Handfull1 · 61-69, F
@windinhishair well said!
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@windinhishair I think this viewpoint is shared among many. A few weeks ago I tried to get folks to understand that Palestine does not equal Hamas; therefore, showing support for Palestinians does not mean supporting terrorism. I gave up.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@trollslayer I saw your post. People want A or B. Must be all A or all B. It can't be part A and part B. But the world doesn't work that way. The world is gray, not black and white.
Northwest · M
I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I will disagree with this:

Often people who use this technique are not even aware of it. It tells the truth in its own terms, but those terms are a lie.

I believe that those who propagandize for one side in a conflict (or debate) deliberately use this tactic, and push it through their circle of influence. That circle of influence, by helping spread false truism, provides legitimacy to Truism.

At this point, it's really hard to say whether Hamas does not enjoy popular support in Gaza, or in Arab or Muslim countries in general. thousands of dead children "collateral damage", fog up people's vision, and the anger could be directed at either Hamas or Israel.

In 2006, with the exception of Lebanon's Shiaa, Lebanon's population's anger turned toward Hezbollah, and that led to a very limited war between Hezbollah and a number of Lebanon's groups, mainly Druze, Sunnis and Christians.

During the 2014 war, people's anger was directed at Hamas. A father, interviewed by Al-Jazeera, was asked about a hit that killed his child, and he pointed to a Hamas rocket launcher hidden behind bushes that touch the family's house as the culprit.

Israel's PR machine, helped with Western countries' governments's PR machines, has a single purpose: make the process of getting rid of Hamas, which is what everyone wants (including the Palestinian people, whether or not their current state of anger prevents them from seeing it), clean. As in eliminate discussions related to the Palestinian human toll. During WWII, or even Vietnam, the human toll was obscured, and only victories and heroics were exposed to the public.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Yeah. It's popularity stems from its effective (though disingenuous) framing. It asks the wrong question to get the 'right' answer in a parallel debate to the real issue.
Northwest · M
@Burnley123

To clarify, there are people who've used the very arguments I used as examples who are acting in good faith. They are however, following politicians and media who are not.

Yes, that's clear.

I believe that those who propagandize for one side in a conflict (or debate) deliberately use this tactic, and push it through their circle of influence. That circle of influence, by helping spread false truism, provides legitimacy to Truism.

and what I meant. Take Colin Powell for instance, he was used to legitimize the invasion, and I personally believed what he said.
Northwest · M
@trollslayer
USA did the same thing back in 2001-2, and that is how we wound up in Iraq. I think those in the Bush administration knew what they were doing, and self-justified it by saying they were getting rid of a "bad man". For the US public, it was fed as "terrorists attacked us>Saddam is a terrorist>must attack Iraq." Us with a brain thought differently, and thought the problem was MUCH more complex than a good/evil action movie. I view the Hamas/Israeil/Palestine situation similarly. I actually think the situation bears a strong similarity to that between the USA and native peoples back in the 19th century.

Yes, we had a bunch of neocons who thought this was the 1950s. The Iraq invasion is what gave us multiple financial near-disasters, and the total chaos the world is in today.
It's very common in politics indeed, and very few see through it. I started noticing it a few years ago and more than half the questions are avoided entirely, but in such a way that other politicians and journalists seem satisfied with the "answer". It's bizarre when you see it.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@NerdyPotato Politicians do it, people everywhere do it. Jordan Peterson is the most frequent that I can think of.

I'm very literal in the way my brain works and I find all of this frustrating.
I have also noticed that with the self defense argument that it also comes with the assumption that whatever tactic is currently in use is the only option.

Lets pretend for a second that Bibi is being totally honest and every one of the 8000 are dead because of the use of human shields.

Why is there not even a discussion of different tactics? Artillery and airstrikes are not the only way to prosecute a conflict.

Hell up until Bibi came to power the IDF themselves mostly dealt with this kind of thing with Mossad and special forces and targeted attacks and assassinations.

Now they just level the whole block. It doesn't have to be that way.

Not to mention that many counter-insurgency experts and all field manuals on the subject say that this approach is counterproductive to their stated objective.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow It absolutely does but (as I know you have( this should lead us to be skeptical about their stated objective.
@Burnley123 Especially when the stated objectives made domestically and those stated to the outside world don't seem to quite line up either.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Indeed. If more people paid attention to that, they would think very differently.
KiwiBird · 36-40, F
I hate the "All Lives Matter" response......usually by those who have privilege.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
> It tells the truth in its own terms, but those terms are a lie.

I really like that way of phrasing things. I think that politicians use this language frequently and quite deliberately, but what happens is people pick it up without recognizing that this language has baked-in deception.
Longleggedlady · 31-35, F
There is always an Objective with these things Truism is a valid and deliberate Tactic used politically and also very widely used in the business world as well. It is basically designed to deflect attention away by creating an alternative point of focus and without actually answering the original question or argument another version is created. There really isn't the concepts of GOOD or BAD, RIGHT or WRONG or FAIR when it comes to both Politics and Business there are just two things LEGAL and ILLEGAL but even then the later can be sub-navigated and regularly is.
This kind of strawmanning is super common in American politics. Republicans usually combine it with an implied lie. They'll say things like "we shouldn't be doing trans surgeries on young children" which is true, it's strawmanning, but it also implies that this is happening, which is the lie. They're actually trying to change the conversation, so now instead of talking about trans people having the same rights as everyone else, you're explaining how their claim is wrong, and now you're arguing over that.
Theyitis · 36-40, M
Just from reading the headlines on RealClearPolitics one would get the impression that celebration of Hamas is rampant on college campuses and in New York City, and I read about a poll showing that over 50% of Gen Z’ers support Hamas. Is any of that true?
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Theyitis Not at all. I'm familiar with that because someone posted it here but it appears to have been misinterpreted by a lot of media sources.

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/26/generational-divide-on-the-israel-hamas-war
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Theyitis

An Oct. 17 Generation Lab poll of 978 college students found that 48% of them do not blame the Oct. 7 attacks on Hamas — with 12% blaming it on other Middle Eastern governments, 11% blaming it on Israel and the remaining 25% blaming it on someone else.

Even the Axios source is very misleading. It was a multiple-choice question in which college students were asked who was to blame for the conflict. You could only give one answer.

The 48% picked someone else than Hamas as their first choice but honestly, this is ridiculous. 12% blame other ME countries (allies of Hamas) and only 11% blame Israel.

Even then, blaming Israel does not equate to support for Hamas necessarily. Personally: I blame Israel, Hamas, other ME governments and Western governments combined. I am not alone in that but there is no option for that in the poll. Just because someone didn't pick Hamas as the first option does not mean that they support Islamic terrorists. Clearly, this is ridiculous.

So in short, it was a misleading poll that was badly reported on.
Handfull1 · 61-69, F
@Burnley123 I hate most polls. Many don’t give acceptable options!
I’m seeing a lot of regular people defending Hamas and saying Israel should not exist. Disagreeing with this is not misdirection.
Bumbles · 51-55, M
@LeopoldBloom I think repatriation for many exiled Palestinians, for example. There are also laws about how land can be transferred, laws about marriage, residency rights in Jerusalem, and many others. Arabs enjoy many rights in Israel, more than they do in Arab states, but there is still legal discrimination.
@Bumbles Every country has the right to control its borders and who it allows to emigrate. The only reason there is a demand for a "right of return" is because the Arab countries have kept Palestinians in perpetual, multi-generational refugee status. If the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of refugees had been allowed citizenship, they would have been citizens of those countries. Palestinians have been kept in misery and used as pawns by their Arab brethren. There needs to be some accountability for that. This isn't a problem that Israel should be expected to solve by itself.
Bumbles · 51-55, M
@LeopoldBloom My vision for repatriation wouldn’t be opening the border in a chaotic way. Not everyone would be satisfied. I’m sure numbers would be far lower than what Palestinians would want. It also will never happen. I’m imagining if the moderates took over and settled the whole mess once and for all.
SW-User
It's nothing more than mealy-mouthed "both-sidesism" to avoid addressing the actual point.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@SW-User It is but it's a specific way of doing that

I get to make up my own term, damn you!

 
Post Comment