“The truth as I understand it is that Hillary is a career politician with an extraordinary amount of experience in getting things done in Washington. Trump is a despicable, unpredictable megalomaniac that has zero plan and on top of it is racist, xenophobic, alienating, misogynist, who not only has sexually assaulted women but brags about it openly.”
In the weeks between the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the women’s march following Donald Trump’s inauguration, I was privileged to exchange thoughts on America with a young graduate of the University of California Santa Barbara who holds a post graduate degree from Columbia, is an education executive with Planned Parenthood and marched in the women’s protest in Washington DC.
Our correspondence followed a note sent to friends in California fallaciously asking if they were preparing for secession. I had read news about Governor Brown’s choice for California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, and I included a link to an article about Becerra’s ties to the radical Marxist / Chicano organization M.E.CH.A. The goal of his organization as stated on the group’s web site is to create a social crisis so great the only solution would be reorganization with California and a large portion of the southwestern U.S. becoming the Chicano nation of Aztlan.
MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as “Mechistas,” romanticize Mexican claims to the “lost Territories” of the Southwestern United States — a Chicano country called Aztlan.
From the M.E.CH.A. web site
Although M.E.CH.A. has roots in Denver’s Crusade for Justice civil rights group, its initial organization grew from a meeting of several like-minded groups on the campus of UC Santa Barbara. My young friend was proud to explain how her former campus has probably become more radical than UC Berkeley. She accepts that the southwestern U.S. had been stolen by white settlers and soldiers who slaughtered natives.
Even more interesting is that she views America as a country built on land stolen from the original residents by murdering between 1 and 95% of them. The number doesn’t matter since 1 is as bad as 95%. Then, to build the capitalist economy, the founding white fathers kidnapped and enslaved a significant portion of the population of Africa. Again, “significant” portion is any number, as even 1 justifies condemning all white people in today’s America as undeserving murdering slave runners. To support her argument, she cited her friend who writes history curriculum (implying a credible source) that until 1820 there were more blacks in the country than whites.
It seems her opinion is that any wealth or power the U.S. has accumulated is the result of abuses to women, the murdering of Indians, and the bloodshed of enslaved blacks who’s labor enriched the politically powerful who control capitalism. She firmly believes those abuses will intensify under the “white nationalists” President Trump is installing in powerful positions. Especially if he takes away a woman’s right to abort a baby at taxpayers’ expense. But that of course is not a bad murder of a person, it is simply a woman being free to live her life the way she wants. A bit convoluted but certainly her belief.
How can anyone prove something which does not exist, does not exist? Is it possible? No! However, events which have occurred can be discussed. Unfortunately such discussions are often based more on feelings or beliefs than facts. Name calling is typical – especially from those who suspect they really don’t have facts on their side. Such discussions nearly always end when the shouting and name calling become excessive, violent, or both.
She didn’t want to continue to read my “… propaganda, tunnel vision, trump bullshit…” because, “People around the world (will) die because of this man’s policies. That is real and happening…I’m here for the worldwide struggle for equity (equality I think she meant) not stories like this (the vulgarity of the march) meant to distract us from what’s really happening.”
The latest example of liberalism came recently as the world watched liberals on the UC Berkeley campus advance from shouting to beating as attendees attempted to get past the blockade and attend a lecture by a conservative author. Sadly, as police stood idly by, protesters supposedly there to protect the innocent students from hearing the poison speech of the invited author, beat attendees with a shovel and left one bleeding in the streets as other liberals sat fires and destroyed property in the area. This scene followed a similar but less violent protest on the University of Colorado at Boulder just days earlier. It seems the liberals involved need to compete with each other for the title of most radical.
My young friend was quick to justify violent radicals on the California campuses because President Trump must be stopped – for the sake of humanity? Her quote pictured above is repeated in various forms by many on the radical political left. It is also an excellent example of an emotional argument containing both name calling and a syllogism fallacy.
Since syllogy is the most popular means of introducing a debate tactic known as a red herring into a liberal headline story, taking a minute to understand what it is and how it works is important to understand today’s media name calling attacks on anyone who threatens to reduce the influence of the media or the political establishment.
Syllogism fallacies begin with a statement difficult to deny which in turn supports a conclusion. In my friend’s example, she claims Hillary is a career politician and therefore is successful. The fallacy is that the conclusion – that she has gotten things done – is certainly supposed to mean she got ‘good’ things done. But who gets to say if those things were good. Judging from the rioting and violent assaults on the campus of UC Berkeley as leftist protesters shut down a scheduled presentation by a conservative author, only liberals are allowed freedom of speech and they decide what defines a positive accomplishment. So lets examine closely my friend’s quote.
The fallacy makes the claim that she got things done because, and only because, she was in Washington. But there is no evidence offered to support that idea. Therefore, to question what she accomplished opens a new debate and introduces a new set of opinions about whether those “accomplishments” were positive for the country or not? And now the debate is based on the opinions about things that got done and not if they got at all. Suddenly the otherwise questionable claim that Hillary has had “extraordinary” experiences in Washington is accepted as evidence she has been a successful career politician. And now the entire fallacy is arguably supported by opinion not facts and the debate reaches a draw.
Convoluted? You can be assured that this is how nonsense becomes a powerful force in politics. But as evidenced by the second half of my friend’s quote, if the syllogy fails to catch and deflect, name calling is always the best second choice. And just look at that list: despicable, unpredictable megalomaniac (which could mean he is either unpredictable or a megalomaniac but to be both would be contradictory), racist, xenophobic, alienating and a misogynist who rapes and molest women. She can say these things because his political opponents said so on television – and that makes it true of course.
When name calling, using more syllables gains the most attention since they sound more intelligent. Most people don’t like to admit they don’t know what a derogatory name means so they simply accept it must be true if someone ‘smarter than themselves’ said it. But as evidenced by the photo seen above taken recently at the women’s protest in Washington, anything associated with the Nazi party, racism or Fachism or vulgarity also seems to excite the liberals.