December 17, 2019 • 2
Comments
The demand that only
mainstream establishment media sources be used to argue against establishment
narratives is inherently contradictory, says Caitlin Johnstone.
If you’re skeptical of Western
power structures and you’ve ever engaged in online political debate for any
length of time, the following has definitely happened to you.
You find yourself going back
and forth with one of those high-confidence, low-information establishment
types who’s promulgating a dubious mainstream narrative, whether that be about
politics, war, Julian Assange, or whatever. At some point they make an
assertion which you know to be false – publicly available information
invalidates the claim they’re making.
“I’ve got them now!” you think
to yourself, if you’re new to this sort of thing. Then you share a link to an
article or video which makes a well-sourced, independently verifiable case for
the point you are trying to make.
Then, the inevitable happens.
“LMAO! That outlet!”
they scoff in response. “That outlet is propaganda/fake news/conspiracy theory
trash!”
Or something to that effect.
You’ll encounter this tactic over and over and over again if you continually
engage in online political discourse with people who don’t agree with you. It
doesn’t matter if you’re literally just linking to an interview featuring some
public figure saying a thing you’d claimed they said. It doesn’t matter if
you’re linking to a WikiLeaks publication of a verified authentic
document. Unless you’re linking to CNN/Fox News (whichever fits the preferred
ideology of the establishment loyalist you’re debating), they’ll bleat “fake
news!” or “propaganda!” or “Russia!” as though that in and of itself magically
invalidates the point you’re trying to make.
And of course, it doesn’t.
What they are doing is called attacking the source, also known as an ad
hominem, and it’s a very
basic logical fallacy.
Most people are familiar with
the term “ad hominem,” but they usually think about it in terms of merely
hurling verbal insults at people. What it actually means is attacking the source of
the argument rather than attacking the argument itself in a way that
avoids dealing with the question of whether or not the argument itself is true.
It’s a logical fallacy because it’s used to deliberately obfuscate the goal of
a logical conclusion to the debate.
“An ad hominem is
more than just an insult,” explains David
Ferrer for The Quad. “It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or
evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing
about the truth or falsity of their claims.”
This can take the form of
saying “Claim X is false because the person making it is an idiot.” But it can
also take the form of “Claim X is false because the person making it is a
propagandist,” or “Claim X is false because the person making it is a
conspiracy theorist.”
I don't think @bellingcat knows what's about to hit
them now that @caitoz is on their
case. Settle in for a few fun months as their entire bullshit narrative on #Syria chemical weapons
comes tumbling down. Here's her opening jab: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/narrative-managers-faceplant-in-hilarious-opcw-scandal-spin-job-6710730cda01 …
Someone being an idiot, a
propagandist or a conspiracy theorist is irrelevant to the question of whether
or not what they’re saying is true. In my
last article debunking
a spin job on the OPCW scandal by the narrative management firm Bellingcat, I
pointed out that Bellingcat is funded by imperialist regime change operations
like the National Endowment for Democracy, which was worth highlighting because
it shows the readers where that organization is coming from. But if I’d left my
argument there it would still be an ad hominem attack, because it wouldn’t
address whether or not what Bellingcat wrote about the OPCW scandal is true. It
would be a logical fallacy; proving that they are propagandists doesn’t prove
that what they are saying in this particular instance is false.
What I had to do in order to
actually refute Bellingcat’s spin job was show that they were making a bad
argument using bad logic, which I did by highlighting the way they used
pedantic wordplay to make it seem as though the explosive leaks which have been
emerging from the OPCW’s investigation of an alleged chemical weapons attack in
Douma, Syria were insignificant. I had to show how Bellingcat actually never
came anywhere close to addressing the actual concerns about a leaked internal
OPCW email, such as extremely low chlorinated organic chemical levels on the
scene and patients’ symptoms not matching up with chlorine gas poisoning, as
well as the fact that the OPCW investigators plainly don’t feel as though their
concerns were met since they’re blowing the whistle on the organisation now.
And, for the record,
Bellingcat’s lead trainer/researcher guy responded to my arguments by saying I’m a
conspiracy theorist. I personally count that as a win.
The correct response to
someone who attacks the outlet or individual you’re citing instead of attacking
the actual argument being made is, “You’re attacking the source instead of the
argument. That’s a logical fallacy, and it’s only ever employed by people who
can’t attack the argument.”
The demand that you only ever
use mainstream establishment media when arguing against establishment
narratives is itself an inherently contradictory position, because
establishment media by their very nature do not report facts against the
establishment. It’s saying “You’re only allowed to criticise establishment
power using outlets which never criticize establishment power.”
2/2 No principle is worth
nuclear war. This honest reporter, @caitoz,
beholden to no ideology or special interest, calls it as it is, not as the #MSM wants to see -- https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/19/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia/ …
Good luck finding a
compilation of Trump’s dangerous escalations against Moscow like the
one I wrote the other day anywhere in the mainstream media, for
example. Neither mainstream liberals nor mainstream conservatives are
interested in promoting that narrative, so it simply doesn’t exist in the
mainstream information bubble. Every item I listed in that article is
independently verifiable and sourced from separate mainstream media reports,
yet if you share that article in a debate with an establishment loyalist and
they know who I am, nine times out of ten they’ll say something like “LOL Caitlin
Johnstone?? She’s nuts!” With “nuts” of course meaning “Says things my TV
doesn’t say”.
It’s possible to just click on
all the hyperlinks in my article and share them separately to make your point,
but you can also simply point out that they are committing a logical fallacy,
and that they are doing so because they can’t actually attack the argument.
This will make them very
upset, because for the last few years establishment loyalists have been told
that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to attack the source instead of the
argument. The mass hysteria about “fake news” and “Russian propaganda” has left
consumers of mainstream media with the unquestioned assumption that if they
ever so much as glance at an RT article their faces will begin to melt like
that scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. They’ve been trained to believe
that it’s perfectly logical and acceptable to simply shriek “propaganda!” at a
rational argument or well-sourced article which invalidates their position, or
even to proactively go around calling people Russian agents who dissent from
mainstream western power-serving narratives.
But it isn’t logical, and it
isn’t acceptable. The best way to oppose their favorite logically fallacious
tactic is to call it like it is, and let them deal with the cognitive
dissonance that that brings up for them.
Me: This link proves my claim.
Empire loyalist: Eww, THAT outlet? They publish criticisms of western imperialism!
Me: Yeah. That's why I'm linking to them.
Empire loyalist: No. You can only criticize western imperialism linking to outlets that never criticize western imperialism.
Empire loyalist: Eww, THAT outlet? They publish criticisms of western imperialism!
Me: Yeah. That's why I'm linking to them.
Empire loyalist: No. You can only criticize western imperialism linking to outlets that never criticize western imperialism.
Of course, some nuance is
needed here. Remember that alternative media is just like anything else:
there’s good and bad, even within the same outlet, so make sure what you’re
sharing is solid and not just some schmuck making a baseless claim. You
can’t just post a link to some Youtuber making an unsubstantiated assertion and
then accuse the person you’re debating of attacking the source when they
dismiss it. That which has been presented without evidence may be dismissed
without evidence, and if the link you’re citing consists of nothing other
than unproven assertions by someone they’ve got no reason to take at their
word, they can rightly dismiss it.
If, however, the claims in the
link you’re citing are logically coherent arguments or well-documented facts
presented in a way that people can independently fact-check, it doesn’t matter
if you’re citing CNN or Sputnik. The only advantage to using CNN when possible
would be that it allows you to skip the part where they perform the online equivalent
of putting their fingers in their ears and humming.
Don’t allow those who are
still sleeping bully those who are not into silence. Insist on facts, evidence,
and intellectually honest arguments, and if they refuse to provide them call it
what it is: an admission that they have lost the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment