Atkins defends the "weird" label for Trump's supporters
Analyzing the article
The Washington Monthly
Our Analysis: 2 Fallacies
The dramatic transition from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee has given Democrats... a fascinatingly effective new attack on MAGA conservatives. Everywhere you look, Democrats are using "weird" to describe MAGA policies and personalities.
... Why does the "weird" charge work well with them? I would argue that it's an ingenious way of reframing masculinity and nudging alienated right-leaning men back to the center.
David Atkins argues that by labeling conservative policies and supporters as "weird," Democrats can appeal to men who feel alienated by traditional gender norms and are uncomfortable with the more extreme elements of the conservative movement; however, the text relies on misrepresentations and overgeneralizations to make this case, undermining its persuasive power.
1. nut-picking • This series of statements exhibits the nut-picking version of the cherry picking fallacy:
The modern conservative movement is home to extremists who want to ban IVF and contraception, cheer "Mass Deportation Now," as the signs at the Republican convention said, force LGBTQ citizens back into the closet, ally themselves with Vladimir Putin's Russia and Viktor Orban's Hungary, install a religious dictatorship, and generally make life a living nightmare for anyone who isn't a traditionalist Christian conservative. No wonder some of the Barstool Sports guys are ripe for the Democratic message about the Republicans being weird. Most men aren't so obsessed with controlling every aspect of women's lives that they want to ban pornography or recreational sex.
This passage cherry-picks and exaggerates the most extreme views held by a small fringe of conservatives, and then portrays those views as representative of the entire "modern conservative movement." This creates a distorted and unrealistic characterization of conservatives as a whole, ignoring the diversity of opinions and more moderate positions within the movement. By focusing solely on the "nuts" or extremists, the passage paints an unfairly negative and one-sided picture of conservatism.
2. no true Scotsman • The author implicitly defines a significant sub-group of men as being outside the bounds of "normal men":
Most normal men know those guys. Those lost reactionaries are weird.
This rhetoric attempts to exclude certain individuals or groups from a broader category (normal men) by claiming that they are not truly part of that category, in order to avoid taking them seriously or considering the possibility of their having a legitimate perspective.
References
- David Atkins (2024, Aug 6). Why the "Weird" Charge From Governor Tim Walz Against Republicans Works | Washington Monthly.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/08/06/why-the-weird-charge-against-republicans-works/
Disclaimer
Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'
NO AI TRAINING
Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
Comments