Hi there, Internet commenter.
You've been sent a link to this video
because someone is concerned that you might not
be arguing your case to your utmost ability.
They're concerned you might have used a fallacy
to make an important point, thus defeating your own claim.
The fallacy they're concerned you might have used
is the straw man fallacy.
Contrary to what many people would have us believe,
a straw man is not simply an argument that you dislike
or find inconvenient.
Rather, it is a version of an argument that
is misrepresented-- simplified so that it is easier
to knock over.
Just as an actual man made of straw
is a less solid version of a man made of flesh,
a straw man argument is a less solid version
of a fully fleshed out argument.
A straw man replaces or represents whatever
actual argument is being made.
Straw manning can come in many different forms.
It's not even always intentional.
You might accidentally construct a straw man
if you don't fully understand the depth of an argument.
And that is fine.
It happens to the best of us.
However, to intentionally misread or misrepresent
an argument to simplify the process of discrediting it,
that's a little bit less forgivable.
To take nuanced points out of context,
to ignore crucial information, to even exaggerate claims
to the point of absurdity which is then easier to refute,
these are all straw man tactics.
For example, Mike and Straw Mike are
having a conversation about how to responsibly depict
awful stuff in media.
I don't think it's too much to ask
that when a media creator wants to show heinous or awful stuff,
they do so in a context that shows that that stuff is
heinous and awful.
Oh, so now we're not allowed to show violent or terrible things
unless we include some long-winded sermon about how
bad things are bad?
I think creators should be able to show or do
whatever they want.
The original argument states a preference for what Mike thinks
constitutes the responsible use of media.
The straw man argument recasts this
as something much simpler and easier to agree with-- freedom
is good, censorship is bad.
But now Mike and Straw Mike are no longer
arguing about the same point and so
the conversation will quickly become
unfocused and aggressive, which is never fun.
If you're going to win an argument,
you want to win against what the other side actually thinks,
don't you?
A straw man argument keeps that from happening.
I hope this description of the straw man
fallacy has been helpful.
Happy conversing.