“--I know know, but ehm, but anyway. Let's have a look at my nuts then.” Okay, let’s.
“Envy is how every commie gets started.” “This is just the latest attempt by the
left to gaslight everyone.” I wouldn’t even rate that!
A few days ago, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) made a response to my video titled The Nutpicking
Fallacy, in which I used him as an example, and as a result my video died! “Warning,
alert!” They ask you how you are and you just have to say that you’re fine when you’re
not really fine, but they would never understand.” Throughout, Carl expressed many points which
I find fair, but I find those that he made regarding the Nutpicking fallacy itself really
quite off… Now I personally think that the best way for us to move forward is to have
face-to-face for conversation, and after talking with his secretary, I’m pleased to say that
we’ve arranged to do exactly this. We’re recording on the 14th, and I’m sure the
conversation will be published shortly after. However, I do still think that it’s worth
me responding in my typical format, as it lends itself very well to precision and clarification.
In a nutshell, I want you all to really understand my criticism before watching our conversation.
So here’s how I’m going to approach this: I’ll begin by shortly clarifying the Nutpicking
fallacy itself, then I’ll do my best to steelman and confront Carl’s objection,
and then finally I’ll address his less related points. With that, let’s get on with it.
And, eh, thanks for joining me. And, I'm not a communists...
“So the video is called the nut picking fallacy, and essentially, what he's-- I don't
know why he's renamed the fallacy of composition?” I haven’t, The fallacy of composition is
similar to the fallacy of nutpicking, and for this reason it’s easy to confuse the
two, but as Alex O’Connor commented, they’re distinct. The former occurs when one infers
that something is true of a whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
For example, this brick is loose, therefore the wall itself is loose. Whereas the fallacy
of Nutpicking occurs when one presents a non-typical proponent, position, or argument as if it,
or they, ARE typical. For example, this brick is loose, which is typical of bricks in this
wall. This is a fallacy, of course, because most bricks in this wall are not loose. Or
put another way, the fallacy of composition assigns a property of a part to the whole,
while the fallacy of Nutpicking assigns a property of a part to most other parts. So
yeah, these fallacies are similar, but they are importantly distinct. Okay, with that
covered, let’s get to the main meal – your objection. I’m going to address it in two
parts, since some of your nuts have important attributes that some of your other nuts do
not. “Let's have a look at my nuts then: in The Left Wing Doom Mongers are wrong, Lily
Allen: famous politi-- eh, famous pop star. Very politically engage. In the news, regularly.
Has lots of influence on social media. I didn't just find some random nut on the street, did
I? I didn't find some bedroom feminists or something, you know? This is a person with
influence, with status. Michael Moore, ‘All white people are evil’, well. again he's
an influential film-maker. Again, an influential voice on the left.” So Carl’s objection
seems to be that his nuts are not some random people off the street (“I didn't just find
some random nut on the street, did I?”), but rather they are politically-engaged, famous
people with a large status and a lot of influence. “Famous pop star. Very politically engaged.
In the news, regularly.” […] Has lots of influence on social media […] Well, again,
he's an influential film-maker. He’s, again, an influential voice on the left.” And I
of course 100% accept this – Lily Allen and Michael Moore are not just some nuts of
the street. They are very famous people. We can call them, if you will, “elite nuts.”
But here’s the crux: in regards to the fallacy of Nutpicking, the fact that these nuts are
famous and influential is irrelevant. If you’re criticising one of their views (“If it wasn’t
Muslim guys, someone would’ve raped these women […] All white people are evil”),
and that view is not typically held by the group to which they belong, if you then assert
that it is (“The left has gone mental!”) you are committing the fallacy of Nutpicking.
To put this in context of the former example, Lily Allen is a loose brick in the wall that
is the left, but the fact that she’s famous (say, because she’s a different colour,
or whatever), is absolutely irrelevant. It’s still fallacious to assert that her property
of being unstable is typical of bricks that comprise the left. Or to give a counter example,
Paula White (the chair of the evangelical advisory board for Donald Trump) is extremely
influential, but it would be fallacious to assert that her “speaking in tongues”
and exploiting of vulnerable people is typical of Christians (let alone the whole right).
*Yelling* “Narcissistic babbling” “You need to send in that $100,000 check. If you
do not write that P.O. box, and you do not call that toll-free number, and you do not
become a ministry of sustainer, you will never see sustainment in your life! And your dream
will die, your call will die!” “Thank you Paula. What a great job you do. The evangelicals.
I hear we’re more poplar than ever with the evangelicals. You’re the only one--
and she’ll tell the truth. She’ll only tell the truth.” Hence, Carl, you ARE guilty
of Nutpicking. The typical brick in the left is not loose. Most left-leaning people do
not think that white people are evil. So let’s now move onto your stronger examples. “The
elected councillors in Perth condemning the It's Okay to be White signs. Jeremy Corbyn
saying he won the argument, which, I mean… he is the leader of the opposition! If I recall
correctly, he won the Labour leadership with sixty-two percent of the votes as well. So
I think that you can say that Jeremy Corbyn is representative of the Labour Party, and
if people are voting for the Labour Party then they must be voting for Jeremy Corbyn
to represent them. Surely.” The key difference between Allen and Corbyn, of course, is that
unlike the former, the latter is an elected representative. Both have the attributes of
fame and influence, but crucially, Corbyn also has the attribute of holding office.
“I don't think you can consider this like just some rando that I've dug up from nowhere.
You know, no one’s ever heard of, and that I’m saying, look, he represents this group.”
And I 100% agree. Jeremy Corbyn is not only an elite nut, but is the leader of the Labour
Party – a party which has been, for most of its existence, a staple of the left. But
as you’ve said yourself many times over, Carl, Labour is not the only left-leaning
party in the U.K. “The Brit-- the Tor-- The conservative party in Britain are wet
practically. Like, they’re practically socialists by American standards. Bernie would be thrilled!
Indeed, despite protestations to the contrary, the Conservatives are also on the left. In
fact, I’m sure you’d agree with me when I say that most people in the U.K. are on
the left. Given this, let me get back to your comment: “I think that you can say that
Jeremy Corbyn is representative of the Labour Party.” Yes, I too think that one can say
that Corbyn is a representative of the Labour Party. One could even argue that he’s a
typical or even strong representative of the Labour party… but his delusion of Labour
winning the argument (“We won the argument. We won this. I mean, how can you say that?”)
is not typical of the left. Don’t you see, Carl? If you define Corbyn’s delusion as
the left, you are implicitly defining everyone who isn’t deluded as not the left. You are
helping spread the toxic narrative that only the most WOKE people are left. You are reinforcing
the Left Pole! You are helping our enemies. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument
(which is to say that I know this isn’t your view), that Corbyn was not only the leader
of Labour, but the leader of the left as a whole. Let’s assume that we had a world
government, that absolutely everyone sided either left or right, and that Corbyn led
the left – how would this impact the fallacy of nutpicking? It wouldn’t. The fact that
a nut holds office is (like fame and influence) irrelevant. If a nut holds a view that’s
not typical of the group that they lead, and you assert that it is by virtue of them being
the leader, you are still committing fallacy of Nutpicking. To again use the analogy of
the wall, Corbyn might be the top brick of the now-shattered wall of Labour, and he might
be a top brick in the much larger wall that is the left, but the fact that he’s a top
brick doesn’t somehow make it less fallacious to conflate his non-typical attributes with
the bricks to which he sits upon. Corbyn might have the deluded view that he won the argument,
but it’s not typical of people on the left to have this delusion. Or to again give a
counter example, Donald Trump is a Presbyterian, but that doesn’t mean that most members
of the Republican party are Presbyterian… let alone that the right is typically Presbyterian.
Trump is famous (“famous”), has lots of influence on social media (“has lots of
influence on social media”), is very politically engaged (“Very politically engaged”),
is in the news regularly (“In the news regularly”), and he was elected (“The elected”), and
yet, it’s still fallacious to assert that his attribute of being a Presbyterian is typical
of individuals on the right. It’s got nothing to do with fame or influence or office. It
has everything to do with whether the proposition it typical. So even with your stronger examples,
you are still guilty of Nutpicking. “I mean, let’s take a look at your own videos. You
were denounced by the Atheist Community of Austin because you had had a very calm, and
reasonable, and charitable, one video – one single video – talking about transgenderism--”
So I want to interject here simply to say that yes, it was just one video, but it certainly
wasn’t charitable. It was, in fact, sloppy. I failed to even mention the effects of HRT,
and so I absolutely deserved to be called out. Which is to say, it’s not as Carl is
painting here – I wasn’t attacked simply for making a video in which I disagreed with
the SJW narrative. “… one video – one single video – talking about transgenderism,
that apparently conflicts with the SJW narrative on transgenderism. You were not as pro-transgender
as the board of the Atheist Community of Austin would have you, and so they have literally,
as you say, thrown you under the bus with a whole denouncement that left you feeling
crushed. Why is it the board of directors doing it, if it’s just random nuts who are
not representative of anything? Are the board of directors not representative of the Atheist
Community of Austin? […] Where are the people backing you up? Why aren't people saying ‘No,
the Atheist Community of Austin is wrong, and they need to-- the directors need to change
their ways or be replaced, or something like that? I don’t know.” But, Carl… that
is precisely what happened. I received a gargantuan amount of support – in fact, I received
more support than I have ever experienced for anything, ever. Hundreds of people copied
me into emails complaints to the ACA; their video like to dislike ratio absolutely plummeted;
the comments on all of their videos expressed deep disdain for their denouncement; tons
of community members made videos condemning their actions; and people slammed their Facebook
group so bad that they had to temporarily shut it down. And as a result, they did precisely
what you’ve just suggested. They retracted their statement, apologised to me both publicly
and privately, and the regressives on their board did not get relected. And to top it
all off, the president of the ACA, Jamie Boone, quit weeks later (“Kerfuffle”). And just
as a little side-note to everyone watching: know that Jamie is actually a really nice
guy. He just got caught up. He got unlucky, like many people who got caught up. Now if
I may ask, Carl, what more evidence do you need? The almost entirely left-wing ACA made
a resounding statement in opposition to the regressive narrative. They backed me, and
not the now ex-board of directors. And finally, I just want to clear up some of your misconceptions.
“Then you have his argument with Essence of Thought, who’s, you know, a radical SJW
YouTuber, and he calls out the bullying of Essence of Though in the group of which he’s
a member, but he has now come round to their position, I think.” Right. Let me be as
clear as I can: Me and Essence of Thought do NOT share the same view on transgender
athletics. He believes that if you, Carl (for example), were to simply identify as a woman,
then you should be able to compete in a protected category designed for typical 46, XX women,
with no other qualifiers needed. I, on the other hand, do not hold a view anything akin
to that. “But that’s the radical left-wing position, is the Olympic official position.
Is that not representative of something? […] How are they not representative of something?
Like, they are the ones calling the shots. Essence of thought agrees with the Olympic
committee.” Again, no, the Olympics does not share the same view as Essence of Thought.
Unlike the latter, who insists on identity alone being the qualifier, the Olympics insists
that anyone seeking to compete in the woman’s category must prove that they have had, for
twelve months, less that ten nanomoles of testosterone per litre. What’s more, thanks
to scientists such as Joanna Harper (who is a transwomen and athlete herself), they are
looking to decrease the limit to just under five nanomoles per litre. And so, again, the
Olympics is yet another good case of the radical-left loosing ground because the wider-left, such
as people like myself, are calling them out. The left said no to Corbyn, no to the ex-ACA
board of directors, and no to making identity the sole qualifier to athletic categories.
“And I wish that him and David Pakman, I think-- David Pakman does this all the time.
Well, I don’t think that this radical fringe represents the democrat party, or the left-wing
movement, or anything like that. It’s like, yeah, but it is everywhere! And it is your
biggest and brightest figures.” Yes, there is a big problem with so many left-wing leaders
holding quite frankly absurd ideas – just as there is a big problem with so many right-wing
leaders holding so many absurd ideas. These days, every groups’ “biggest and brightest
figures” seem to be utterly preposterous. However, and again, if the group to which
they belong (or the group of which they lead) does not typically share one or more of their
preposterous views, then it IS a fallacy to assert that they do. This is why David Pakman
is correct to say that their fringe views are not typical of the left. Lilly Allen’s
misandry, Michael Moore’s racism, and Corbyn’s delusion are not typical of left-leaning individuals,
and so it is fallacious to assert that they are (“The left. The left. The left. The
left has not one credible voice left”). To wrap up, I just want to convey that the
reason that I used you as an example of Nutpicking, Carl (other than the fact that you do it regularly),
is because I actually share a lot of your views, and it frustrates me to see your otherwise
great points so easily missed due to your generalizations. Anyhow, I hope you’ve all
found this entertaining, or better yet compelling, and the same goes to you too, Carl. I thoroughly
look forward to our chat. But please… please… if you bring your nuts, at least cover them
up! Oh, and just FYI, I’m not a communist and I have literally no idea how that’s
become the top comment on your video.