This has been going on a lot lately in my country. Usually, in a discussion where some antisocial behavior of an organization is being criticized, a supporter of the organization, usually a member of the major religious group, makes an argument that the opposite side is fascist and is oppressing them. They argue that despite being the majority, there is a tyranny of the majority. In fact, the arguing organization itself is itself oppressive, such as in the historical exercise of power under fascism. They allow no scope for political dissent, anyone opposing them is termed anti-national, and critics are accused of hate speech and being against freedom.

So what sort of logical fallacy is this where political entities level accusations against critics usually with an almost non-existent logic? For example, a fascist-in-action calling the anti-fascist critic a fascist.

  • 1
    You do not give enough information here or your writing is not clear enough. What if the people making the claims are correct? Are you saying the claims being made are FALSE? Or are you claiming that the burden of proof is on the speaker & the burden of proof has not been met? In the case of the latter people can make silly claims just to vent & don't need proofs. It is just venting -- not a rational debate. What is the conclusion here? I can't seem to find it. It looks like just emotional venting by people on both sides probably. I don't see any fallacies here because there is no conclusion. – Logikal Dec 23 '20 at 4:59
  • 1
    @Alpha Delta, AGAIN are their claims true or false? You keep leaving this info out. If they are just VENTING there is no argument here at all. Do they back up their claims at all? You don't mention this at all. There does not seem to be Clear premises & a clear conclusion. AGAIN this looks like people just talking just because they can. If their claims are true there IS NO FALLACY. If their claims are proven false there is NO FALLACY because they were just venting just for show. It is just emotional outbursts. No argument means NO FALLACY. NO PREMISES THEN NO FALLACY. – Logikal Dec 23 '20 at 11:42
  • 1
    @Alpha Delta, in PHILOSOPHY only arguments can contain fallacies. You are confusing philosophy with Psychology or Rhetoric perhaps. Logical argument have a specific format. Logic is not just ANY KIND of communication ANY KIND OF WAY. This is not Burger King: have it your way. Validity and Soundness are two distinct things. Your use of the terminology is not correct. Don't confuse Rhetoric aka "the members of a debate team" discussion for logic. It is not the same thing. LASTLY wiki has been KNOWN to have bad information. It is not fool proof whatsoever. Bad reference can lead to poor thinking. – Logikal Dec 23 '20 at 11:51
  • 1
    @Alpha Delta, I am not speaking to you personally. Anyone in logic ought to ask the same questions. You ought to ask the speaker of said claim the same questions. Seems to me you are not the one presenting the argument. You observe others saying such correct? If the speaker can't prove their claim or justify then it is just venting. Yes the terminology in academia is more struct than everyday slang. You can verify this yourself by looking at academic sources. Again this example seems just people talking because they legally can speak. It is not the case they can PROVE their claim correct? – Logikal Dec 23 '20 at 14:31
  • 1
    @Alpha Delta, please understand if the claim is not justified by the speaker then most likely this is just emotional venting just because they have free speech. That is "IT IS NOT ILLEGAL for me to say whatever so I will!" That is not an argument. I have a feeling you don't think the claims are justified & perhaps that is what annoys you about the people speaking. Sure a 4 year old can do what they do. Believing the claim is true & actually KNOWING are distinct things. Also do not confuse law or people in authority as people always making an argument. A ruler doesn't NEED TO ARGUE. – Logikal Dec 23 '20 at 19:13

It could be a simple ad hominem attack (i.e. name calling).

It could also be an example of poisoning the well, which is similar to guilt by association. You simply say something derogatory about a party you want to discredit. For example, if you call a group's leader a sex predator or a fascist, then many people will assume his ideas are suspect.

The echo aspect, where a fascist calls someone else a fascist kills two birds with one stone. You're sending out the message that you're NOT a fascist, and at the same time poisoning the well with the claim that your opponent IS a fascist.

I'm not sure what the term for that strategy is, however.

  • Your concept of this fallacy is all wrong. All logical fallacies must have some connection to the conclusion from the premises. Mere name calling has nothing to do with Philosophy. What you are mentioning about name calling or speaking negative is pure PSYCHOLOGY. A fallacy has to either have something to do with the conclusion give or the conclusion is impossible to be drawn from the given premises. Ad hominem means I would say your argument conclusion is false because i have something negative about YOU as a person to say. The point here is your conclusion being denied is the key NOT YOU. – Logikal Dec 23 '20 at 4:52
  • 1
    Ad hominem attacks are strange creatures. As you say, they don't literally qualify as invalid arguments. But, like it or not, they are classified as fallacies. In fact, they are frequently listed among the most common fallacies. In the comments, you yourself wrote, "It is just venting -- not a rational debate." If it isn't a rational debate, and there's no valid argument, then there's either no fallacy, or there's a pseudo-fallacy (e.g. ad hominem attack or poisoning the well). – David Blomstrom Dec 23 '20 at 15:29
  • I am glad you understand the concept. As such you ought to recognize the AD HOMINEM is probably the most over used & incorrectly used PSUEDO FALLACY these days. People are confusing street slang with academic terminology. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!! AS you know the term ARGUMENT means something specific to academics: clear premises & a conclusion. We do NOT just mean a disagreement between people. I would commit an ad Hominem if we argue about taxes & I state the wealthy should pay more; you argue opposite. I then say no one should accept your conclusion because you pay $800 – Logikal Dec 23 '20 at 17:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.