“You don’t know the science, you don’t know why you think w e’re in hot water…”
“Well, I’m just a broccoli, at the end of the day.” “I get that, but--” “Oh…”
“What are you doing there?” “Sorry, I just got a call. That’s the wrong way
up, hold on.” […] “I do think you need to understand that my client is just a broccoli.
It’s easy-- really easy to cherry-pick the science.” Yeah, and in this day and age
of echo-chambers and outrage, it’s even easier to hand pick the nuts! “I’ve always
been a piece of broccoli.” *Sigh* I’m Stephen Woodford, thanks for joining me, and
this, my fellow apes, is the Nutpicking Fallacy.
“This is what evolutionists have been searching
for, for hundreds of years. This is called the Crododuck. Can you see this?” “What
a numbnut.” Similar to the Strawman Fallacy – which
occurs when someone deliberately misrepresents a proponent, position, or argument as to make
it, or them, easier to confront (“This is called the Crocoduck”) – the Nutpicking
Fallacy occurs when someone accurately confronts a weak proponent, position, or argument, but
presents it, or them, as if they are a standard, or even strong proponent, position or argument.
Or to put it in simpler terms, Nutpicking refers the tactic of showcasing the nuttiest
members of a group as if they are a typical, or even strong representative of that group.
Now my personal favourite examples are in context of the United States’ election of
2016, during which Republicans and Democrats alike made Nutpicking as American as baseball
and apple pie! “I’ve got a Trump pamphlet here, but I’ve
replaced all the quotes with Hitler quotes.” “So today, we sent David Web to Wisconsin
to ask the demonstrators ‘What are you so upset about?’ Watch this!”
So, on the left hand-side we have the Inside Edition showcasing nuts who support Donald
Trump, and on the right hand-side we have Sean Hannity showcasing nuts who oppose Trump.
In the words of the latter, watch this! “I do not see why man should not be as cruel
as nature.” “Why do you think he comes up with that?” “Well, man is the cruellest
animal.” “Are you protesting Donald Trump?” “Yes!”
“What’s the policy that you object to?” “All of it!”
“Just like the things he says like about women, and, like, the racis--” “Like what?”
“Ehm...” “Great liars are also great magicians.”
Wow. Well, erh, I think that, you know, he’s going to lie in anyway probably to, like,
support the country – to keep the country going – they’ll be good lies!”
“Are you working with a group? You’ve got a UAW sign right there.” “Donald Trump
has accused me of whatever. No, I do not. Yes! I am union – union is standing!”
“So do you still support Trump?” “Yeah, but I don’t support Hitler!”
“Ehm… with the-- with the way things are-- ehm-- I think Trump is, ehm, getting a lot
of ground because he’s, ehm.” “Well… but you support these quotes though,
right?” “Well if Donald Trump said them I support them.”
Haha, you have to admit, whether you support Trump, oppose Trump, or have absolutely no
craps to give, these nuts are, to put it politely, aggravating. But here’s the thing, the Insider
and Hannity are not guilty of Nutpicking simply because they gave these loons a microphone.
No, they are guilty of Nutpicking because they conflated these nuts with the whole group
to which they belong – they treated them as if they are typical representatives. The
Insider Edition did this by consistently conflating, with condescending music, a handful of nuts
from the most populous county in the whole of the United States with ALL Trump supporters.
“Watch what happens when Donald Trump fans are read what they thought were quote of his.”
And Hannity is guilty of Nutpicking because he conflated the nuttiest people that he could
find a protest with the WHOLE Democrat party. “America is going to be watching, and America
is going to say ‘Why do we want this in the white house again? We’ve had this for
eight years!” Yeah… thanks Obama! What’s more, Hannity
further poisoned the well by showcasing (and then once again conflating with the entire
Democrat party) a violent nut in Janesville. “You see an elderly person literally punched
in the face.” Seriously Obama, for crying out loud! Anyhow,
there we have it folks: two juxtaposed examples of the Nutpicking fallacy. Now despite the
low-hanging nature of both of these videos, they each gandered massive traction, and that’s
the problem… In the age of echo-chambers, nuts are a primary ingredient of virality,
and it’s precisely due to this fact that detractors are massively incentivised to engage
in such rhetoric. “But it seems that the left-- the left--
the left-- the left-- the left-- has not one credible voice left!”
Enter exhibit D: Sargon of Akkad. Truth be told, I don’t particularly dislike Sargon
– I don’t go out of my way to watch his content, but from what I’ve seen (and I
might be mistaken, since I don’t watch all of his content), he’s pretty liberal. However,
he is, without doubt, one of the absolute worst offenders of Nutpicking. His recipe
seems to be: Step one: find a nut. Step two: ridicule and expose that nut. Step three:
conflate that nut with the entire group to which they belong. Step four: profit. To demonstrate
this, let’s take one of his recently published videos. Here’s one: it’s titled “The
Left Wing Doom Mongers Are Wrong”, and it’s loosely (very loosely, I must say) a response
to the end-of-the-world claims made by some climate activists.
“It really seems that the left is about to leap off a cliff.”
“As you can see from Lilly Allen's tweet: well, if it wasn't these Muslim guys, someone
would have r*ped these women.” “And Michael Moore recently (again, like
yesterday this was) was on a podcast where he said white people have not changed, you
should be afraid of them!” “This is what the left will say in response
to it, because look at this. Sickening and disgusting.”
“You lunatic! But it seems that the left has not one credible voice left! Jeremy Corbyn--”
“In 2019 Al Gore was saying there will be no ice caps left.”
“The left has gone mental!” But has it though? (“Is he though?”)
Maybe, just maybe, Sargon is conflating the nuts with the whole? I mean, I for one am
on the left, and yet I find Lilly Allen’s tweet ridiculous, Michael Moore moronic, Jeremy
Corbyn dangerous, and the-end-of-the-world climate claims utterly hysterical. In fact,
I haven’t met a single person (who isn’t religious) that believes the world is going
to end in twelve years – and that includes those who support Cortez.
“The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.”
People who are way further left than I’ve ever been find Cortez’ fear-mongering extremely
cringey and counter-productive. Hence, in just one video, Sargon has conflated “the
left” as a whole with a handful nuts, and he got a lot of view to show for it. And this
is just one example from one content creator. If we just continue with the theme of the
“the left”, we could list, for days, examples from Stefan Molyneux (“Supposedly scientific
left. Leftists around. To the left. To the left. To the left. To the left. To the left”),
Steven Crowder (“The left. The left! As the left. The left! The left. Leftism. To
the left. To the left. According to today’s left. Big government left. Official platform
of the left. The left”) and so on! Likewise, of course, we could do exactly the same with
the theme of “the right” (“Our country is in grave danger! Right wing. Far right.
The far right. Slide to the right. Far right. Hard right. Right wing media. Stalinist Russia!
To right wing authoritarian popularism. Right with authoritarian popularism. Right with
authoritarian popularism. By the right wing media. By the far right”) – especially
since many left-leaning outlets have taken to labelling absolutely anyone or anything
not as left as them as right! “Just as when you’re at the North Pole
all direction are south, the Left Pole is the mystical spot from which all directions
are right.” The sad truth is that most people don’t
actually want an honest, intellectual exchange – they want vindication – they want to
say “Yeah, you see, that group that I don’t like is nuts!” And so Nutpicking is currently
not only as American as baseball and apple pie, but as human as death and taxes! Handing
the nuttiest members of your opposition a megaphone is, sadly, an extremely profitable
form of rhetoric. It is thus not going anywhere, less we, as a whole, raise our collective
consciousness. Just as most people today can spot a strawman a mile off, and, crucially,
are embarrassed by their team (so to speak) when they are the offender, we need to gently
raise our collective consciousness so that most people can spot Nutpicking a mile away,
and, consequently, are similarly embarrassed. Until we achieve this, however, Nutpicking
will remain supreme; everyone’s social media feeds will continue to be a giant circle-jerk.
“How could we possibly have lost? Everyone I know voted the same way I did! [… ] When
will we learn that the real world is not-- not-- not-- not on your Facebook feed?!”
Now the last thing I’d like to say about this fallacy is that it pays to think of groups
as candy bars. While all bars “May contain nuts”, some bars are predominately made
of nuts – such is the case with anti-vaxxers, creationists, and flat-earthers. Most anti-vaxxers
really do believe that vaccines cause autism; most creationists really do believe that evolution
is a hoax; and most flat-earthers really do endorse an insatiable amount of conspiracies.
“Pretty much everyone here though is kind of a conspiracy theorist.” “I’d say
that’s a commentary.” Hence, sometimes – sometimes, a nut really
is a typical (or even strong) representative, and in such cases, no Nutpicking fallacy is
committed. Anyhow, I’m Stephen Woodford, and as always,
thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons
and those of you who’ve supported the channel via other means. I am extremely pleased to
announce that the production of Debunked is on it’s final stretch, and will be with
all who backed very soon!